Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. ComicMix LLC et al
||Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P.
||ComicMix LLC, Glenn Hauman, David Jerrold Friedman and Ty Templeton
||November 10, 2016
||California Southern District Court
||San Diego Office
||Janis L. Sammartino
||Bernard G. Skomal
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 10, 2018
ORDER Granting 99 Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 7/10/2018. (mpl)
|June 21, 2018
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 61 Motion to Strike. The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' affirmative defenses numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, eight, eleven, seventeen, eighteen, and twenty. The boilerplate defenses (numbers one, two, three, four, and eight) are stricken with leave to amend. The Court denies the remainder of the Motion. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/21/2018. (mpl)
|May 29, 2018
ORDER: (1) Granting in Part 90 Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines and (2) Setting Forth First Amended Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-trial Proceedings. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for 3/14/2019 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Janis L. Sammartino. The Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 1/30/2019 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal. The Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law is due by 2/14/2019. The Proposed Pretrial Order is due by 3/7/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 5/29/2018. (mpl)
|May 21, 2018
ORDER Granting in Part 54 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court grants Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts II and III of the First Amended Complaint as they relate to the title of Boldly. Because Plaintiff's unfair competition claims are based on the same factual conduct as its trademark claims, the Court grants Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count IV of the First Amended Complaint as it relates to the title of Boldly. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/21/2018. (mpl)
|December 7, 2017
ORDER Denying 41 Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement. As to Plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, the Court finds Defendants are unable to prove each element of nominative fair use. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition.Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/7/2017. (mpl)
|June 9, 2017
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. It is ordered that the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement. But Plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims stand on different footing. Plaintiff does not oppose the substance of Defendants' trademark-based argument regarding nominative fair use, and the Court therefore grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pla intiff's claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, given Plaintiffs lack of nominative-fair- use opposition and Defendants' failure to respond to Plaintiff's confusingly- similar-titles argument under Rogers v. Grimaldi, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint regarding the second and third causes of action. Any such amendment must be within fourteen days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/9/2017. (dxj)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?