Fume, LLC v. TAJ Wholesale LLC
| Fume, LLC |
| TAJ Wholesale LLC |
| 1:2021cv22949 |
| August 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Lauren Fleischer Louis |
| K Michael Moore |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by TAJ Wholesale LLC. (Alcoba, Ruben) |
Filing 13
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Third Agreed Motion for an Extension of Time For Defendant to File an Answer. #12 . On September 9, 2021, Defendant requested an extension of time to respond to the Complaint #1 , #7 , which the Court denied because Plaintiff had not filed a return of service. 8 . Then, following the filing of the Returned Summons #10 , the Court granted Defendant's second request for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint. 11 . The current deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint is September 24, 2021. Now, Defendant is requesting an additional fourteen (14) days to respond to the Complaint #1 . #12 at 1. Defendant has not offered any reason as to why the extension is necessary. Id. "District courts have 'unquestionable' authority to control their own dockets." Smith v. Psychiatric Sol., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). "This authority includes 'broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.'" Id. (internal citation omitted). Once a scheduling order is entered, it "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "To establish good cause, the party seeking the extension must establish that the schedule could not be met despite the party's diligence." Ashmore v. Sec'y, Dep't of Transp., 503 F. App'x 683, 685 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, in the absence of any explanation at all as to why an extension is necessary, the Court cannot find that "that the schedule could not be met despite [Defendant's] diligence," and Defendant has therefore failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension. Ashmore, 503 F. App'x at 685. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/27/2021. (thn)
|
| Filing 12 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to file an Answer re 11 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer,,,, #9 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #4 Summons Issued, #1 Complaint , #1 Complaint by TAJ Wholesale LLC. Responses due by 10/8/2021 (Alcoba, Ruben) |
|
Filing 11
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Second Agreed Motion For an Extension of Time to File an Answer. #9 . After Defendant filed the instant Motion, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Return of Service, indicating that Defendant was served with the Complaint #1 , on August 20, 2021. #10 at 1. Thus, the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint is currently September 10, 2021. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing that a defendant must respond to a complaint within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint). Now, Defendant requests an additional fourteen (14) days to respond to the Complaint, up to and including September 24, 2021. #9 at 1. Defendant's request is unopposed. Id. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #9 is GRANTED. Defendant may file its response to the Complaint on or before September 24, 2021. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/14/2021. (thn)
|
| Filing 10 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Fume, LLC. TAJ Wholesale LLC served on 8/20/2021, answer due 9/10/2021. (Chesal, Michael) |
| Filing 9 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #4 Summons Issued, #1 Complaint by TAJ Wholesale LLC. (Alcoba, Ruben) |
|
Filing 8
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Parties' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant to File an Answer. #7 . Therein, the Parties request a fourteen (14) day extension of the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint "up until September 24, 2021." Id. at 1. The Parties also request "an Order extending the time in which Plaintiffs must serve their Answer to the Complaint until September 9, 2021." Id. Thus, it is not clear whether the Parties are requesting an extension to September 24, 2021 or September 9, 2021. Moreover, it is not clear why "Plaintiffs" would be serving an answer to a Complaint. These errors in the Parties' Motion notwithstanding, Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Return of Service in this matter and the Court is therefore unable to determine what the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint is in the first place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing that a defendant must respond to a complaint within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) ("Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server's affidavit"). The Court cannot extend a deadline which does not exist. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #7 is DENIED. The Parties are encouraged to review, and comply with, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(a) and 4(l). Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/10/2021. (thn)
|
| Filing 7 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #4 Summons Issued, #1 Complaint by TAJ Wholesale LLC. Attorney Ruben Yuri Alcoba added to party TAJ Wholesale LLC(pty:dft). (Alcoba, Ruben) |
|
Filing 6
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREN F. LOUIS. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis's discovery procedures. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/17/2021. (thn)
|
|
Filing 5
PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court.Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/17/2021. (thn)
|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to TAJ Wholesale LLC. (cds) |
| Filing 3 FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK (cds) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (cds) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against TAJ Wholesale LLC. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-14927981, filed by Fume, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Summon(s))(Chesal, Michael) |
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 Florida 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
| Search for this case: Fume, LLC v. TAJ Wholesale LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Fume, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Michael B. Chesal |
| 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: TAJ Wholesale LLC | |
| Represented By: | Ruben Yuri Alcoba |
| 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.
