Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. v. CAS-MAN, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
Defendant: CAS-MAN, Inc. and Lolita Padilla Maningas
Case Number: 1:2010cv00374
Filed: June 9, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: WARREN
Presiding Judge: Susan J. Dlott
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 31 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, 27 Plaintiff's Motion to toll enforcement is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED and restrained from operating or participating in retail optical store or optometric office within a radius of three miles from the prior franchise operations in Streamwood, Illinois and Bloomingdale, Illinois for a period of one year, less the time defendants have been in compliance with the Courts February 16, 2011 Order.. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1)
August 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 26 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, pltf's motion for contempt (doc.16) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1)
February 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations. Pearle Vision's 9 Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. Default judgment will be entered in Pearle Vision's favor and against defendants CASMAN and Maningas for a total of $213,361.31, which is calculated as follows: 1. An award of damages against defendant Maningas in the amount of $49,827 for Maningas' violations of the Lanham Act, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117; 2. An award of damages against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $68,950.27, plus pre and post-judgment interest, for defendants' breaches of the Streamwoo d Franchise Agreement and the Streamwood Guaranty; 3. An award of damages against defendant Maningas in the amount of $82,177.78, plus pre and post-judgment interest, for Maningas' breaches of the Bloomingdale Franchise Agreem ent and the Bloomingdale Guaranty; 4. An award of attorney's fees against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,406.26, pursuant to Paragraph 30 of the Franchise Agreements and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b) . Defendants will also be PERMANENTLY ENJOINED and restrained from: 1. Manufacturing, packaging, distributing, selling, advertising, displaying, or promoting any product or service bearing any of the Pearle Visions Marks; 2. Using the telephone num ber(s) listed in any telephone directories under Pearle Vision's name pursuant to Paragraph 34 of the Franchise Agreements; 3. Operating or participating in a retail optical store or optometric office within a radius of three miles from e ach of the Stores for a period of one year following the termination of the Franchise Agreements. Defendants are also ORDERED to remove from the Stores all signs, banners, labeling, packaging, advertising, promotional, display, and point-of- purchase materials that bear or display any of the Pearle Vision Marks, name, symbols, or slogans. Also, defendants are ORDERED to cooperate with Pearle Vision to provide for an orderly transition and disposition of any assets used in the operation of the franchises, return possession of the Stores' premises to Pearle Vision in as good a condition as when received by defendants, change the Stores' appearances in accordance with Pearl e Vision's directions so as to clearly distinguish them from a PEARLE VISION store at defendants' expense, transfer all telephone numbers and related directory listings to Pearle Vision, provide Pearle Vision with a copy of all record s relating to optical services that were provided in connection with defendants' former PEARLE VISION franchise and return to Pearle Vision all PEARLE VISION materials, including, but not limited to, the franchise manual, contain ing any of Pearle Visions trade secret and proprietary information and also return all proprietary inventory. Pearle Vision, within thirty (30) days of this Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, will submit to the Court proof of entitlemen t to all costs, disbursements, and expenses related to this action that Pearle Vision is seeking to recover. In light of the recommendation that Pearle Vision be awarded permanent injunctive relief pursuant to its motion for default judgment, Pearle Visions motion for a preliminary injunction 2 is DENIED AS MOOT. (sct1)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. v. CAS-MAN, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
Represented By: Maureen Allison Bickley
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: CAS-MAN, Inc.
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: Lolita Padilla Maningas
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?