MASCHINO et al v. ROYALTY et al
| 101 BLISH STREET A, LLC, 101 BLISH STREET B, LLC, JOHNNY BRASINGTON, HIGH VALUE METAL, INC., PHYLLIS MASCHINO, NEW BLAST, LLC and REBECCA RITZ |
| WILLIAM BRAMAN, CRANE HILL MACHINE & FABRICATION, INC., JEFFRREY LORENZO, MONTGOMERY, ELSNER, & PARDIECK, LLP, PARTNERSHIP OF LORENZO & BEAVERS, MARSHALL ROYALTY, ED WAYT and TEX A. WAYT |
| 1:2014cv00639 |
| April 25, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| 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
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - This cause is before the Court on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 107 ). This motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS IN PART the motion . Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is a genuine issue of triable fact as to whether the Wayts engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to this claim (Count I). The Court finds that the presumption of relinquishing jurisdiction should be followed in this case, and therefore declines to continue exercising supple mental jurisdiction over the parties' state law claims. Dismissal of the parties' state law claims shall be without prejudice to reflect that nothing in this action prohibits the parties from pursuing any state law claims in state court. For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 107 ) is GRANTED with respect to Count I, the Plaintiffs' false advertising claim under the Lanham Act against Defendants Tex A. Wayt and Ed Wayt. The Court declines to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims against Tex A. Wayt and Ed Wayt or the Defendants' counterclaims in this matter and, therefore, DISMISSES all remaining state law claims and counterclaims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/31/2016. (BRR)
|
|
Filing
72
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 23, 27, and 51) have been resolved as follows: The Attorney Defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 51) i s GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Defendants William Braman, Jeffrey Lorenzo, Montgomery Elsner & Pardieck, and Lorenzo & Beavers are hereby DISMISSED from this case. Crane Hill and Royalty's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 27) is GRANTED IN PAR T AND DENIED IN PART. Counts III, V, and VI are DISMISSED as to these Defendants. The Wayts' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 51) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Counts III, V, and VI are DISMISSED as to these Defendants. Counts VII and VIII are DISMISSED as to Plaintiffs Ritz, Brasington, New Blast, 101 Blish Street A, 101 Blish Street B, and High Value ***PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/2/2014.(DW)
|
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 Indiana 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.
