G & G Food, Inc. v. The Curry Pizza Company, LLC
Plaintiff: G & G Food, Inc. a California corporation Doing business as The Curry Pizza House
Defendant: The Curry Pizza Company, LLC
Counter Defendant: G & G Food, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2022cv00269
Filed: March 4, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Presiding Judge: Dale A Drozd
Referring Judge: Barbara A McAuliffe
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 2, 2022 Filing 13 FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM of THE CURRY PIZZA COMPANY, LLC against G & G Food, Inc. by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit Exhibit E)(Miller, Mark)
May 2, 2022 Filing 12 MOTION to AMEND the #4 Answer to Complaint,, Counterclaim, by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Miller, Mark)
May 2, 2022 Filing 11 OPPOSITION by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC to #6 Motion to Strike. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Miller, Mark)
May 2, 2022 Filing 10 OPPOSITION by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC to #5 Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Miller, Mark D. added. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Miller, Mark)
April 19, 2022 Filing 9 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on #5 Motion to Dismiss, #6 Motion to Strike : Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Kish, Steven)
April 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/19/2022: (Text Only Entry) On April 18, 2022, plaintiff and counter-defendant G & G Food, Inc. filed a #5 motion to dismiss and #6 motion to strike affirmative defenses, but plaintiff's motions do not comply with Local Rule 230, as amended on March 1, 2022. In particular, plaintiff has noticed the motions for a hearing on May 17, 2022, which does not comply with Local Rule 230(b), which states that "[t]he matter shall be set for hearing... not less than thirty-five (35) days after service and filing of the motion." L.R. 230(b). Plaintiff is directed to file amended notices of motion, in compliance with Local Rule 230(b). Plaintiff is advised that the next available hearing dates for hearings before Judge Drozd are June 7, 2022 and June 21, 2022. In addition, the parties are advised that pursuant to Local Rule 230, the filing deadline for opposition briefs is calculated based on the motion filing date (here, April 18, 2022), and the filing deadline for reply briefs is calculated based on the opposition filing date. The opposition and reply deadlines are not calculated based on the hearing date. The parties are also advised that in light of the ongoing public health emergency posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and given the long-standing lack of judicial resources in the Eastern District of California, all civil motions set for hearing before District Judge Dale A. Drozd will be decided on the papers. The parties should not contact Judge Drozd's chambers to inquire about whether a hearing on a pending motion will be held. If the court determines that a hearing is necessary, the court will issue an order to specially set the motion for hearing by telephone or video conference.(Hernandez, M)
April 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): Due to the current status of this case, the Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE currently set for 6/7/2022 is continued to September 7, 2022, at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report one week prior to the conference. The parties shall appear at the conference with each party connecting remotely either via Zoom video conference or Zoom telephone number. The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom ID number and password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court attire required. NOTE: Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5 ) and Motion to Strike (Doc. #6 ) pending. Minute order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/19/2022. (Valdez, E)
April 18, 2022 Filing 6 MOTION to STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES re #4 Answer to Complaint,, Counterclaim,. by G & G Food, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Kish, Steven)
April 18, 2022 Filing 5 MOTION to DISMISS by G & G Food, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Kish, Steven)
March 28, 2022 Filing 4 ANSWER with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against G & G Food, Inc. by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC. Attorney Nelson, William K. added. by The Curry Pizza Company, LLC. Attorney Nelson, William K. added. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits to Counterclaims)(Nelson, William)
March 7, 2022 Filing 3 TRADEMARK NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED as to Trademark #1:* 4,528,327 * * 5/13/2014 * * G & G Food, Inc. * Trademark #2:* 4,638,726 * * 11/11/2014 * * G & G Food, Inc. * Trademark #3:* 5,907,520 * * 11/19/2019 * * G & G Food, Inc. * Trademark #4:* 6,076,089 * * 6/9/2020 * * G & G Food, Inc. * ; copy of Complaint and Trademark Report emailed to U.S. Office of Patents and Trademarks. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 6/7/2022 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order, #2 Consent Form, #3 Trademark Report, #4 VDRP) (Lundstrom, T)
March 7, 2022 Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *The Curry Pizza Company, LLC* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Robert Laurence Rosenthal* *Howard & Howard Attorneys* *3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000* *Las Vegas, CA 89169*. (Lundstrom, T)
March 4, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against THE CURRY PIZZA COMPANY, LLC by G & G Food, Inc.. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-10108383) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Curry Pizza House Website, #2 Exhibit B - US Reg. No. 4,528,327, #3 Exhibit C - US Reg. No. 4,638,726, #4 Exhibit D - US Reg. No. 5,907,520, #5 Exhibit E - US Reg. No. 6,076,089, #6 Exhibit F - Curry Pizza Company Articles of Organization, #7 Civil Cover Sheet, #8 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, #9 Certificate of Interested Parties)(Kish, Steven)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: G & G Food, Inc. v. The Curry Pizza Company, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: G & G Food, Inc. a California corporation Doing business as The Curry Pizza House
Represented By: Robert Laurence Rosenthal
Represented By: Steven Edman Kish, III
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Curry Pizza Company, LLC
Represented By: Mark D. Miller
Represented By: William K. Nelson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter defendant: G & G Food, Inc.
Represented By: Robert Laurence Rosenthal
Represented By: Steven Edman Kish, III
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?