Chefs Diet Acquisition Corp. v. Lean Chefs, LLC et al
| Chefs Diet Acquisition Corp. |
| Lean Chefs, LLC, Nicholas Zazza and Arthur Gunning |
| 1:2014cv08467 |
| October 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
119
OPINION AND ORDER re: 94 MOTION in Limine filed by Lean Chefs, LLC, Arthur Gunning, Nicholas Zazza, 90 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lean Chefs, LLC, Arthur Gunning, Nicholas Zazza: For the re asons stated above: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and (2) Defendants' motion to exclude Chefs Diet's expert is DENIED. More specifically, the following claims survive for trial: trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and New York law (Counts I, II, III, and VII); misappropriation of trade secrets (Count VI); replevin (Count XI); breach of fiduciary duty (Count V); and unjust enrichment (Count IX). By contrast, the following claims must be and are dismissed: violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count IV); violation of the CFAA (Count VIII); conversion (Count X); and breach of contract (Count XII). Finally, the parties are ordered to: (1) promptly confer with respect to whether Chefs Diet should be given the opportunity to depose Defendants' three new affiants before trial and to submit a joint letter on that issue within a week of this Opinion and Order; and (2) show cause, in writing, within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order why the documents they filed under seal or in redacted form should remain filed in that state. Per the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket Nos. 27 , 56), within thirty days of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure. The parties shall also follow Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, which identifies submissions that must be made at or before the time of the Joint Pretrial Order, including any motions in limine. If this action is to be tried before a jury, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individua l Rules and Practices. Jury instructions may not be submitted after the Joint Pretrial Order due date, unless they meet the standard of Rule 51(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If this action is to be tried to the Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial approximately two weeks after the Joint Pretrial Order is filed. Finally, if the parties are interested in a settlement conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they shall so advise the Court by joint letter as soon as possible. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Numbers 90 and 94. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/28/2016) (tn)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
