From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Pena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 22, 2020
Case No. 19-CV-06657-LHK (N.D. Cal. May. 22, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 19-CV-06657-LHK

05-22-2020

BASKIN-ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL O. PENA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 29, 31

This case, originally assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, is an action alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). On January 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC and BR IP Holder LLC ("Plaintiffs") moved for default judgment against Defendants Michael O. Pena, Jennifer Pena, and Palo Alto Sandwiches, Inc. ("Defendants"). ECF Nos. 19, 20. Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and still have not appeared in the instant case. Plaintiffs' motion also sought "reasonable counsel fees and costs" but did not specify the amount requested. ECF No. 20 at 24. Judge Corley permitted Plaintiffs to file a supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs, ECF No. 22 at 4, and on April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs, ECF No. 29.

On May 7, 2020, Judge Corley issued a Report and Recommendation to grant default judgment and to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' requested attorney's fees and costs. ECF No. 31. Because Defendants had not appeared in the case and had not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Judge Corley ordered the reassignment of the instant case to a district judge. ECF No. 31. On May 7, 2020, the instant case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 32. The deadline to file any objections to Judge Corley's Report and Recommendation expired on May 21, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No objections were filed by that date.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record in this case, the Court finds that Judge Corley's thorough Report and Recommendation is well-founded in fact and in law. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Additionally, Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Specifically, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and awards $25,707.16 in monetary damages, $16,348.75 in attorney's fees, and $1,394.74 in costs. The Court also ENTERS a permanent injunction against Defendants as follows:

1. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from infringing upon the Baskin-Robbins' trademarks, trade names, and trade dress, and from otherwise engaging in unfair competition with Baskin-Robbins; and

2. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them must comply with all post-termination monetary and de-identification obligations under the Franchise Agreements and Personal Guarantees.

3. Defendants are ordered to file with the Court and serve on Baskin-Robbins, within 30 days after the service upon Defendants of this Order, a report in writing and under oath
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2020

/s/_________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Pena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 22, 2020
Case No. 19-CV-06657-LHK (N.D. Cal. May. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Pena

Case Details

Full title:BASKIN-ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL O. PENA, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: May 22, 2020

Citations

Case No. 19-CV-06657-LHK (N.D. Cal. May. 22, 2020)

Citing Cases

WheelMaxx Inc. v. Mahal

Courts have routinely held the continued use of a mark by a “holdover” franchisee creates a high likelihood…