From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Precision Franchising LLC v. Lene-Tarango

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
Aug 8, 2011
No. 1:11-cv-4 (AJT/TRJ) (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2011)

Summary

treating letter received from pro se defendant as motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Why Drive 55, Inc. v. Duncan

Opinion

No. 1:11-cv-4 (AJT/TRJ)

08-08-2011

PRECISION FRANCHISING LLC, Plaintiff, v. CARY LENE-TARANGO, el al, Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that defendant Cary Lene-Tarango's ("Tarango's") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) be denied, and that plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 9) be granted in part as to defendant Lene Corp. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, defendant Tarango's response thereto, and plaintiffs opposition to Tarango's response. The Court has also conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and, based on that de novo review, adopts and incorporates the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant Tarango's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Defendant Tarango shall file an Answer to plaintiff's Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 9) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to defendant Lene Corp. A default judgment shall be entered against defendant Lene Corp. and in favor of plaintiff in an amount equal to defendant Lene Corp.'s profits during the period of infringement. to be determined, and the plaintiffs costs in bringing this action. Plaintiff's motion for trebled damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees is DENIED: and it is further

ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order defendant Lene Corp. file and serve an accounting of its profits during the period of infringement. Any disputes regarding the adequacy of the accounting arc REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff shall submit, as required, an appropriate bill of costs upon the resolution of any issues related to the accounting.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to defendant Cary Lene-Tarango, pro se, at the address listed in the case file.

Anthony J. Trenga

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia

August 8,2011


Summaries of

Precision Franchising LLC v. Lene-Tarango

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
Aug 8, 2011
No. 1:11-cv-4 (AJT/TRJ) (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2011)

treating letter received from pro se defendant as motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Why Drive 55, Inc. v. Duncan
Case details for

Precision Franchising LLC v. Lene-Tarango

Case Details

Full title:PRECISION FRANCHISING LLC, Plaintiff, v. CARY LENE-TARANGO, el al…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

Date published: Aug 8, 2011

Citations

No. 1:11-cv-4 (AJT/TRJ) (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2011)

Citing Cases

Why Drive 55, Inc. v. Duncan

And, while counsel could not file the letter as an Answer on Conn's behalf, he should have made its contents…