Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. v. WASHINGTON, 6:13-cv-1030-Orl-36TBS. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140708d03 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith, filed on May 19, 2014 (Doc. 70). In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff" or "TracFone") Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction ("Motion for Default Judgment") (Doc. 66) be granted in part and denied in part. See Doc. 70. No party
More

ORDER

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith, filed on May 19, 2014 (Doc. 70). In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff" or "TracFone") Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction ("Motion for Default Judgment") (Doc. 66) be granted in part and denied in part. See Doc. 70. No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation and the time to do so has expired.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), default was entered against Defendants Rosa Lopez ("Lopez") and Rolo Multiservices, Inc. ("Rolo" and, collectively with Lopez, the "Lopez Defendants") on August 28, 2013. Doc. 39. On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). Doc. 66. The Lopez Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Upon review, the Court is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that service on Lopez was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), but that Plaintiff did not establish proper service on Rolo under Rule 4(h), and therefore default judgment against Rolo is not appropriate. See Doc. 70 at 4-5.1 The Court also agrees that Plaintiff has adequately established Lopez's liability for trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition and false advertising in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125, contributory trademark infringement, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204, and civil conspiracy in violation of Florida common law. See Doc. 70 at 5-9. Finally, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of a permanent injunction against the unlawful conduct. See id. at 10-11. Therefore, after careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, in conjunction with an independent examination of the court file, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 70) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 66) is GRANTED as to Defendant Rosa Lopez and DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant Rolo Multiservices, Inc. 3. A Final Judgment will be entered by separate order. 4. Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 71) requesting dismissal of Defendant Rolo Multiservices, Inc. is APPROVED. 5. The claims against Rolo Multiservices, Inc., only, are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 6. The Clerk is directed to terminate Rolo Multiservices, Inc. as a party to this case.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. After the Report and Recommendation was entered, Plaintiff filed a Notice with the Court averring that upon further research, it had concluded that Rolo is not an actual corporation, but rather a fictitious business name through which Lopez conducts her business activities. Doc. 71 ¶¶ 4-5. Based on these developments, Plaintiff conceded that it would not be appropriate to enter a final default judgment against Rolo. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff suggested that Rolo be terminated as a party to this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Id. ¶ 8. The Court will grant Plaintiff's request.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer