Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-05810-SVW-MRW
06-08-2017
FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC LIMITED, a Bahamian corporation, and HOPE ROAD MERCHANDISING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. JAMMIN JAVA CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
[]
FINAL JUDGMENT
On September 20, 2016, Plaintiffs Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Limited ("56HR") and Hope Road Merchandising, LLC ("HRM") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed their First Amended Complaint against Defendant Jammin Java Corporation ("JJ") for Breach of Contract as to the parties' Long and Short Term Licenses, Declaratory Relief as to the parties' Long and Short Term Licenses, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Trademark Infringement, Accounting, Fraud-Misrepresentation, and Indemnification.
On September 26, 2016, Defendant JJ filed its Answer and Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Third-Party Complaint against Rohan Marley.
On November 22, 2016, Defendant JJ filed its Third Amended Counterclaims against Plaintiffs.
On December 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' First and Third Claims for Relief and Defendant JJ's First through Sixth and Ninth Counterclaims for Relief. The hearing on that Motion was held before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Court Judge, presiding, on January 23, 2017.
The Court, in an Order dated January 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 97), granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' First and Third Claims for Relief, as well as with respect to Defendant's First, Second, Third, and Fourth Counterclaims.
On February 3, 2017, Defendant JJ filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant's Counterclaims. The hearing on that Motion was held before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Court Judge, presiding, on February 15, 2017.
The Court, in an Order dated February 15, 2017 (Dkt. No. 118), dismissed all of Defendant JJ's Counterclaims with prejudice.
On February 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Claims for Relief. The hearing on that Motion was held before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Court Judge, presiding, on February 15, 2017.
The Court, in an Order dated February 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 122), granted Plaintiffs' second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety.
Pursuant to the Court's Order of February 21, 2017 (Dkt. No. 121), Plaintiffs' filed a Motion for Award of Damages for trademark infringement on April 7, 2017. The hearing on that Motion was held before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Court Judge, presiding, on May 15, 2017.
The Court, in an Order dated May 30, 2017 (Dkt. No. 146), granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Damages in the amount of $2,458,835.20.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Pursuant to the Court's Orders of January 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 97), February 15, 2017 (Dkt. No. 188), February 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 122), and May 30, 2017 (Dkt. No. 146), judgment is entered against Defendant JJ and in favor of Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for Relief.
2. Plaintiffs are awarded damages in the amount of $2,829,994.36, which consists of:
a. $371,159.16 in unpaid royalties awarded pursuant to the Court's Orders of January 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 97) and February 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 122); and
b. $2,458,835.20 awarded as a measure of damages for JJ's trademark infringement pursuant to the Court's Order of May 30, 2017 (Dkt. No. 146).
3. As the prevailing parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover prejudgment costs from JJ in the amount of To be determined by Application to Tax Costs, pursuant to a separately filed Memorandum of Costs.
4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and related nontaxable expenses from JJ in the amount of To be determined by Motion for Attorneys Fees, pursuant to a separately filed motion.
5. Pursuant to the Court's Order on February 15, 2017 (Dkt. No. 118), all of Defendant's Counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice.
6. Plaintiffs' Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims for Relief are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 8, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
United States District Court Judge