Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-cv-43-RGJ
08-16-2023
THE HONORABLE ORDER OF KENTUCKY COLONELS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GLOBCAL INTERNATIONAL et al., Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REBECCA GRADY JENNINGS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff The Honorable Order of the Kentucky Colonels, Inc.'s (“HOKC”) moved for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [DE 12], for Entry of Default [DE 10], and for leave to Request Documents Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference. Defendant David J. Wright (“Wright”), pro se, responded to these filings [DE 14] and moved the Court to Stay PreAnswer Response Filings [DE 15], to take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts [DE 17], and to dismiss the complaint [DE 18]. HOKC responded to the motion to stay. [DE 16]. These matters are ripe.
For the reasons below, pending motions [DE 10; DE 13; DE 15; DE 17; DE 18] are DENIED as MOOT and the Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED.
I. BACKGROUND
In an earlier related case, the Court granted HOKC an agreed permanent injunction against Global International, Ecology Crossroads Cooperative Foundation, Inc. (“Ecology Crossroads,” together the “Corporate Defendants”), Wright (collectively, “Defendants”), and anyone acting on their behalf, from using the KENTUCKY COLONELS and any confusingly similar trademark. Honorable Ord. of Kentucky Colonels, Inc. v. Kentucky Colonels Int'l, No. 3:20-CV-132-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2021) (hereinafter “Kentucky Colonels I”) (DE 93, order granting permanent injunction (“Permanent Injunction Order”)). Under the Permanent Injunction Order, the Court retained jurisdiction over the case to enforce the Permanent Injunction Order and terms of the Settlement Agreement. Id.
The agreed permanent injunction order also included Kentucky Colonels International, another of Wright's entities.
HOKC now sues Defendants again for one count of civil contempt, four counts of various federal trademark infringement, one count anticybersquatting, and three counts of various common law trademark infringement. [DE 1 at 26-34]. Wright as an individual is proceeding pro se. [DE 6]. There has been no entry of appearance on behalf of the Corporate Defendants. The Court ordered a hearing and ordered HOKC to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in favor of enforcing the Agreed Permanent Injunction Order in Kentucky Colonels I. [Id.].
II. DISCUSSION
The parties agreed that the purpose of this case is to enforce the Court's Agreed Permanent Injunction Order. [See DE 14; Kentucky Colonels I DE 121; DE 122; DE 126]. In a post-hearing filing in Kentucky Colonels I, HOKC argues for the survival of the claims against “Unknown Defendants,” who “are individual employees, agents, owners, officers, or directors of Defendants Ecology Crossroads or Globcal who have transacted business, engaged in conduct, or otherwise participated in the activities described in” HOKC's Complaint. [DE 1 at 3]. These Defendants are already enjoined under the Agreed Permanent Injunction Order pursuant to this Court's Order in Kentucky Colonels I. [Kentucky Colonels I DE 93; DE 129]. HOKC describes “new allegations of misconduct and the potential participation in those activities by new parties.” [Kentucky Colonels I DE 126 at 3690]. Although HOKC argues it has a claim against Unknown Defendants, it fails to describe specific conduct separate from Wright and the Corporate Defendants. [See DE 1]; see Root v. Jones, No. 1:22-CV-240, 2022 WL 1681720, at *2 (W.D. Mich. May 26, 2022) (“Where a person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal” (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544; and Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 Fed.Appx. 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004)).
The Court ordered HOKC to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed. [DE 19 at 1313]. HOKC did not address this at the evidentiary hearing held in April and the parties have filed nothing in this case since the Court's show cause order.
Thus the Court considers the infringement described in the Complaint under enforcement of the Agreed Permanent Injunction Order in Kentucky Colonels I. The Court DISMISSES the Complaint in this action and DENIES as MOOT the remaining motions.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED in favor of resolution of the permanent injunction order in case number 3:20-cv-132;
2. All pending motions [DE 10; DE 13; DE 15; DE 17; DE 18] are DENIED as MOOT.