Van Cleef Arpels Logistics, S.A. v. Jewelry

Full title: VAN CLEEF ARPELS LOGISTICS, S.A., VAN CLEEF ARPELS, INC., and VAN CLEEF…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 25, 2008

07 Civ. 564 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2008)

Opinion

07 Civ. 564 (SAS).

October 25, 2008

For Plaintiffs:, Milton Springut, Esq., Tal S. Benschar, Esq., Kalow Springut LLP, New York, New York.

For Defendants:, Kenneth Feldman, Esq., Stephen Edward Feldman, Esq., Feldman Law Group, New York, New York.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2008, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment concerning the validity of their copyright in the "Vintage Alhambra" design ("the Design") and denying defendants' cross-motion on the same issue.¹ On October, 4, 2008, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendants' motion for reconsideration but adhering to its original decision that Van Cleef Arpels holds a valid United States copyright over the Design.² On October 22, 2008, this Court rejected a second motion for reconsideration filed by defendants.³

1 See Van Cleef Arpels Logistics, S.A. v. Landau Jewelry, 547 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

2 See Van Cleef Arpels Logistics, S.A. v. Landau Jewelry, No. 07 Civ. 564, 2008 WL 4489784 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2008).

3 See Van Cleef Arpels Logistics, S.A. v. Landau Jewelry, No. 07 Civ. 564, Docket No. 79 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2008).

Along with their second motion for reconsideration, defendants moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal concerning the validity of plaintiffs' copyright, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For the reasons described below, defendants' motion is denied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

III. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1292^{4 5 6 7 8 9} First ¹⁰ Second ¹¹ Third ^{12 13}

4 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

5 Williston v. Eggleston, 410 F. Supp. 2d 274, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

6 In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 619 (2d Cir. 1999). Accord Ted Lapidus, S.A. v. Vann, 112 F.3d 91, 95 (2d Cir. 1997).

7 In re Flor, 79 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

8 In re Levine, No. 03 Civ. 7146, 2004 WL 764709, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2004) (quoting German v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1385, 1398 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).

9 See, e.g., Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 47 (1995) ("[D]istrict courts [have] first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals."); In re Kassover, 343 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2003); DM Rothman Co., Inc. v. Cohen Mktg. Int'l, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 7905, 2006 WL 2128064, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2006).

10 See In re Worldcom, Inc., No. M47, 2003 WL 21498904, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2003).

11 See In re Lloyd's Am. Trust Funds Litig., No. 96 Civ. 1262, 1997 WL 458739, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 1997) (citing Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1990)).

12 Transportation Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Transit Auth., 358 F. Supp. 2d 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 182 F.R.D. 51, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).

13 Estevez-Yalcin v. The Children's Village, No. 01 Civ. 8784, 2006 WL 3420833, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

SO ORDERED: