Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. IPPO Jewelry Corp et al
| Plaintiff Brighton Collectibles, LLC |
| Does and IPPO Jewelry Corp |
| 2:2016cv06065 |
| August 12, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| John E. McDermott |
| Copyright |
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
47
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Pursuant to the settlement agreement and Stipulation of the parties 46 , the Court hereby permanently enjoins defendant IPPO Jewelry Corp. ("IPPO"), as well as I PPO's servants, employees, agents, representatives, and all persons or entities in active concert or participation with IPPO, from designing, manufacturing, importing, shipping, delivering, selling, marketing, displaying, advertising, or promoti ng any products that incorporate designs that are substantially similar to Plaintiff's Love Affair Heart copyright, VA 1-929-721. All claims in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (gk)
|
|
Filing
31
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IPPO JEWELRY CORP. by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant IPPO Jewelry Corp. as follows: Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $150,00 0 in statutory damages for its willful infringement of Plaintiff's Love Affair Heart copyright, VA-1-929-791. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $6,600 in attorneys' fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IPPO Jewelry Corp. and all predecessors, successors and related companies, each of their present and former members, managers, employees, representatives and agents, and any and all other persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with them, are permanently enjoined re Brighton's copyrighted design known as the "Love Affair Heart," Copyright No. VA 1-929-791, etc. See document for further details. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)
|
|
Filing
22
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to s how cause, in writing, on or before December 5, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission with out oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. Defendant IPPO Jewelry Corp did not answer the complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. (clee)
|
|
Filing
19
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before November 15, 2016, why this action should not be dismi ssed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv)
|
|
Filing
14
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before October 20, 2016, why this action should not be dismi ssed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv)
|
|
Filing
10
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before September 22, 2016, why this action should not be dism issed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv)
|
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 California Central 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.
