Diaz v. Bautista

Full title: DORA M. DIAZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. MARLENE PRADA BAUTISTA, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 20, 2015

2:10-cv-04690-MWF-JC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015)

Opinion

DORA M. DIAZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. MARLENE PRADA BAUTISTA, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM No. 2:10-cv-04690-MWF-JC United States District Court, C.D. California. April 20, 2015

FIRST AMENDED JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS MARLENE PRADA BAUTISTA A/K/A MARLENE PRADA A/K/A MARLENE PRADA, MARIA RUTH CUERVO, AND NELLY SANTAMARIA

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.

This Judgment supersedes, nunc pro tunc, the Judgment against Defendants Marlene Prada Bautista, Maria Ruth Cuervo, and Nelly Santamaria [Docket No. 292] entered August 24, 2012.

In its Special Verdict Form Filed on February 4, 2012 [Docket No. 245], the jury found that:

(1) As between plaintiff Dora Diaz ("Diaz") and defendant Marlene Prada Bautista ("Prada"), Diaz was the first to use her FAJATE mark in commerce in the United States;

(2) Prada's FAJATE mark is a counterfeit mark;

(3) As of February 2008, Prada has actual or statutory notice that Diaz's FAJATE mark was registered;

(4) As of August 2009, defendant Maria Ruth Cuervo ("Cuervo") had actual or statutory notice that Diaz's FAJATE mark was registered;

(5) As of August 2009, defendant Nelly Santamaria ("Santamaria") had actual or statutory notice that Diaz's FAJATE mark was registered;

(6) Prada, Cuervo, and Santamaria each willfully used the FAJATE trademark; and

(7) The amount of statutory damages awarded to Diaz (1) from Prada is $1,000,000, (2) from Cuervo is $50,000, and (3) from Santamaria is $3,000.

Based on that Special Verdict Form [Docket No. 245] and the Court's June 29, 2012 Order re: (1) Prada's Claim Under the Inter-American Convention; (2) Application of the Laches Defense; (3) Diaz's Motion for Permanent Injunction [Docket No. 280]; and Diaz's Ex Parte Application for First Amended Judgment [Docket No. 352]; the Court ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Diaz and against Marlene Prada Bautista a/k/a Marlen Prada a/k/a Marlene Prada, Cuervo, and Santamaria;

2. An injunction shall be separately issued against Marlene Prada Bautista, Cuervo, and Santamaria;

3. Marlene Prada Bautista a/k/a Marlen Prada a/k/a Marlene Prada shall pay to Diaz the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) plus interest thereon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961;

4. Cuervo shall pay to Diaz the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) plus interest thereon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961;

5. Santamaria shall pay to Diaz the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) plus interest thereon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

6. Diaz is the prevailing party under Local Rule 54-2. Diaz shall recover costs against Marlene Prada Bautista a/k/a Marlen Prada a/k/a Marlene Prada, Cuervo, and Santamaria.