Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PLAINTIFFS / APPELLANTS
PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR
FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Daniel N. Ballard, Esq.
SEQUOIA COUNSEL PC
6624 Penney Way
Carmichael, CA 95608
(2 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 2 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................iii
INITIAL STATEMENT...........................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................4
I.
II.
III.
IV.
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................14
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES...................................................................15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................15
ii
(3 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 3 of 18
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Baker v. Deshong, No. 14-11157, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8014
(May 3, 2016)...2,3,9,11
CollegeNET, Inc. v. XAP CORP., 483 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D. Ore.2007)...11
Estate of Saunders v. CIR, 745 F. 3d 953 (9th Cir.2014).6
Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303 (3rd Cir.2014)..2, 8
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059
(9th Cir. 2015)........passim
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Von Drehle Corp.,
781 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2015)2,9
Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2000)..4
Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993)5
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014)...passim
MM v. Lafayette School Dist., 681 F. 3d 1082 (9th Cir.2012)..6
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F. 3d 889 (9th Cir.2003)...7
Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)...passim
Playboy Enterprises v. Baccarat Clothing Co. Inc., 692 F.2d 1272
(9th Cir.1982) .4,7
Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp.,
733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013).7
Skydive Ariz., Inc. v. Quattrochi, 704 F.Supp.2d 841 (D. Ariz.2010).....11
Slep-Tone Entertainment v. Karaoke Kandy Store, 782 F.3d 313
(6th Cir.2015).....2,10
Smith v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (In re Smith), 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 4582
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2009).11
Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F. 3d 881 (9th Cir.2005).7
Thacker v. FCC, 503 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2007)..6
United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.2001)6
Statutes
15 U.S.C. 1117(a)...4,9,10
Rules of Procedure
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3...10
iii
(4 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 4 of 18
INITIAL STATEMENT
Plaintiffs/Appellants SunEarth, Inc. and The Solaray Corp. (SunEarth)
prevailed below after a bench trial in its trademark infringement action under the
Lanham Act. SunEarth subsequently appealed the district courts (1) denial of its
attorneys fee request, (2) the scope of the permanent injunction and (3) denial of
its fourth contempt motion. In a Memorandum Decision issued on May 24, 2016, a
three-judge panel of this Court affirmed the Judgment in all respects.1
The basis for requesting this combined Petition for Reconsideration or En
Banc Review is limited to the panels decision affirming the district courts denial
of attorneys fees. Specifically, the panel held it was precluded by precedent from
considering whether the standard used to award attorneys fees in Lanham Act
cases has been altered by the Supreme Courts decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v.
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). Id. at p.3.
In the undersigned counsels judgment, that erroneous conclusion was based
on overlooked material points of fact and law. Specifically, the panels conclusion
that it was required by Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778
F.3d 1059, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015) to apply the pre-Octane attorneys fee award
standard was erroneous as a matter of law because it did not take into account that
all the appellate briefing in Fifty-Six Hope Road was complete before Octane was
(5 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 5 of 18
decided, that none of that briefing mentioned Octane, that at no point in oral
argument was Octane or the attorneys fee award mentioned, and that panels
decision did not address Octane at all but, rather, recited the existing law by rote.
That panel was not asked to decide, and did not decide, if Octane altered the legal
standard in this Circuit for fee awards in Lanham Act cases. The overlooked
material points of law are the rule that statements made by three-judge panels
merely in passing, without analysis, are not binding precedent and the rule that
circuit courts should not unnecessarily create splits in the law.2
If panel rehearing is denied, this Court should sit en banc to consider
whether its definition of a Lanham Act exceptional case must be changed in light
of Octane. The panels Memorandum Decision holding it could make no changes
directly conflicts with four circuit courts that have each held the Octane totality of
the circumstances fee award standard in patent cases must now also be applied in
Lanham Act cases and must replace their existing law.3 The panel has created an
unnecessary circuit splitleaving this Court standing alone.
Moreover, Octane changed not only the standard used to determine whether
2
SunEarths Rule 28(j) letter informing the Court that other circuit courts
adopted the Octane standard in Lanham Act cases is Attachment 2.
3
Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 313-315 (3rd Cir.2014);
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 781 F.3d 710, 72021 (4th Cir. 2015); Baker v. DeShong, No. 14-11157, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8014,
*10-11 (May 3, 2016). See also, Slep-Tone Entertainment v. Karaoke Kandy Store,
782 F.3d 313, 317-18 (6th Cir.2015).
(6 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 6 of 18
to award attorneys fees, it also changed the evidentiary burden to prove a case is
exceptional from clear and convincing to a preponderance of the evidence.
Octane, 134 S.Ct. at 1758. A companion patent case decided by the Supreme Court
the very same day on overlapping issues also changed the standard of review of a
district courts exceptional patent case determination from de novo to an abuse
of discretion. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744,
1748 (2014). These changes are issues of exceptional importance in patent law
and, by extension, trademark law if Octane and Highmark applythat no circuit
court, with one exception, has addressed in the context of the Lanham Act.4 This
appeal provides the Court the opportunity to address them en banc.
The panels alternative conclusion that even under the Octane standard this
case is not exceptional and does not warrant fee shifting is dicta, and worse,
legally improper. If Octane applies then so does Highmark and the change it made
in the standard of review. Highmark held appellate review is abuse of discretion
instead of de novo because determining whether a case is exceptional is a matter
of discretion rooted in factual determinations the district court is better
positioned to decide. The district court did not perform a totality of the
circumstances fee shifting analysis and so the panel could not, and did not, have
The Fifth Circuit held Octane requires that to prove a Lanham Act case
exceptional the burden is by a preponderance of the evidence. Baker v.
Deshong, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8014 at *10.
(7 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 7 of 18
one for review. Its own de novo analysis was improper under Highmark and, was
moreover, functionally deficient in that it evaluatedand rationalized awayeach
of Defendants bad acts in isolation rather than, as Octane requires, holistically
under a totality of circumstances approach. The panels truncated Octane analysis
cannot stand as the example for how such an analysis should properly be done.
In the event rehearing is granted, SunEarth requests reconsideration of the
panels decision to deny SunEarths motion to supplement the appellate record to
include evidence of Defendants post-Judgment bad acts and the panels holding
this case is not exceptional under either the current standard or Octane.
ARGUMENT
The prevailing party in an exceptional case under the Lanham Act may be
awarded its attorneys fees. 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).5 This Circuits current rule when
the trademark owner prevails is that a case is exceptional "when the infringement is
malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful." Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060,
1068 (9th Cir.2000). That list of adjectives was taken from the Lanham Acts
legislative history and first adopted as that Acts fee-shifting standard by Playboy
Enterprises v. Baccarat Clothing Co. Inc., 692 F.2d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir.1982).
The district court applied this standard when rejecting SunEarths request for
attorneys fees. The district courts application of that standard was understandable
5
The fee-shifting provision in its entirety states: The court in exceptional cases
may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
(8 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 8 of 18
given that it ruled on SunEarths fee request in August, 2013long before the
Supreme Court issued Octane in April, 2014 (while this case was on appeal). If, as
every other circuit court to address the matter has held, the Octane totality of the
circumstances standard applies in Lanham Act cases, then that standard must now
apply to this case as well. See Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86,
97 (1993) (Supreme Court interpretations of law are given full retroactive effect in
all cases still open on direct review).
I.
circumstances standard when reviewing the denial of its fee request, the panel
held it could not because it was bound by a post-Octane Fitness panels decision
applying our prior definition of exceptional. Memorandum Decision at p.3-4
(citing Fifty-Six Hope Road, 778 F.3d at 1078). The panel, however, overlooked
material points of fact and law when coming to that erroneous conclusion.
A.
A review of the appellate docket for Fifty-Six Hope Road Music [No. 13-15407 at
Dkt. 71] reveals the last brief was filed in that case on March 20, 2014a month
before Octane was decided on April 29, 2014. See Attachment 3.
(9 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 9 of 18
ruling nor the attorneys fees award was discussed during oral argument.7 The
Fifty-Six Hope Road panel was not presented with the question whether Octane
changed the definition of exceptional under the Lanham Act. Even though
decided ten months after Octane, the panel had no briefing on, and did not
consider, let alone answer, that question. That panels decision merely recited the
existing law. Fifty-Six Hope Road, 778 F.3d at 1078.
B.
As a matter of law, the Fifty-Six Hope Road panels passing statement of the
existing law on Lanham Act attorneys fee awards was not binding precedent on
the panel that decided this appeal. In the Ninth Circuit, statements made in
passing, without analysis, are not binding precedent." Thacker v. FCC, 503 F.3d
984, 993-94 (9th Cir.2007). This rule applies even when the statement is a
statement of law. Estate of Saunders v. CIR, 745 F. 3d 953, 960-61 (9th Cir.2014);
MM v. Lafayette School Dist., 681 F. 3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir.2012).8 The Fifty-Six
The oral argument was held about two months after Octane was decided.
Available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000013011
8
See also, United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc)
(Kozinski, J., concurring with four judge plurality)("Of course, not every statement
of law in every opinion is binding on later panels. Where it is clear that a statement
is made casually and without analysis, where the statement is uttered in passing
without due consideration of the alternatives, or where it is merely a prelude to
another legal issue that commands the panel's full attention, it may be appropriate
to re-visit the issue in a later case.)(adopted by the Court in Miranda B. v.
(10 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 10 of 18
Hope Road panel was not asked to decide, did not focus on, and did not decide
whether Octane changed the Lanham Acts definition of exceptional.
Merely because Fifty-Six Hope Road was decided after Octane does not
mean its unexamined, rote recitation of an existing rule of law is binding precedent
on all subsequent three-judge panelsespecially when that rule was not raised as
an issue or addressed by that panel. Octane is admittedly not intervening
Supreme Court authority decided after Fifty-Six Hope Road. But that panels
recitation of this Courts long-held and unexamined standard for fee shifting under
the Lanham Act was dicta the panel was not obligated to follow.
Octane is, however, intervening Supreme Court authority decided after
Playboy Enterprises, 692 F.2d at 1276which directly considered the issue and
literally created this Courts Lanham Act fee award standard. Because Octane
undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the Playboy Enterprises standard in
an irreconcilable way,9 the panel should have considered itself bound by Octane.
See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F. 3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
The panel also overlooked the rule that circuit courts should not
unnecessarily create splits in the law. See, e.g., Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment
Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.2013); Silvers v. Sony
Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir.2003) and quoted in In re Wal-Mart Wage
& Hour Emp't Practices Litig., 737 F.3d 1262, 1268 n. 8 (9th Cir.2013)).
9
(11 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 11 of 18
Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F. 3d 881, 890 (9th Cir.2005). SunEarth timely
provided the panel with a Rule 28(j) letter that identified the then-three (now four)
circuit courts that held the Octane standard must now be applied in Lanham Act
cases.10 The panel, however, did not mention any of those decisions but, instead,
asserts without discussion that Fifty-Six Hope Road is binding precedent.
II.
the Lanham Act fee award standard has held it does or, in the case of the Sixth
Circuit, that it likely does. Those decisions are:
a. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 313-315 (3rd Cir.2014).
While Octane Fitness directly concerns the scope of a district
court's discretion to award fees for exceptional case under 285
of the Patent Act, the case controls our interpretation of 35(a) of
the Lanham Act. Not only is 285 identical to 35(a), but
Congress referenced 285 in passing 35(a). Thus, we have
look[ed] to the interpretation of the patent statute for guidance in
interpreting 35(a). Moreover, in its explication of the word
"exceptional, the Octane Fitness Court relied in part on the D.C.
Circuit's holding that the term exceptional, as used in 35(a) of
the Lanham Act, means "uncommon or not run-of-the-mill. In so
doing, the Octane Fitness Court noted that the Lanham Act fee
provision is identical to 285 of the Patent Act. We believe that
the Court was sending a clear message that it was defining
exceptional not just for the fee provision in the Patent Act, but
for the fee provision in the Lanham Act as well. We therefore
import Octane Fitness's definition of exceptionality into our
interpretation of 35(a) of the Lanham Act. (emphasis added and
internal citations omitted).
10
See Attachment 2.
(12 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 12 of 18
(13 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 13 of 18
10
(14 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 14 of 18
are intervening authority that must now be applied in Lanham Act caseswhich, if
so, would both clarify and change the law of this Circuit.
A.
11
The Fifth Circuit holds that change applies in Lanham Act cases. Baker, 2016
U.S. App. LEXIS 8014 at *10.
12
11
(15 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 15 of 18
12
(16 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 16 of 18
review its district courts Lanham Act fee award decisions for an abuse of
discretionand do away with the type of two-phase standard of review rejected by
Highmark.
IV.
standard to assess whether this is an exceptional case that warrants fee shifting.
Although it concluded this is not such a case, that cannot be an alternative holding.
First, it had already held it was foreclosed from applying Octane.
Second, the analysis it performed was wrong. The panel evaluatedand
rationalized awayeach of the Defendants bad acts that were presented to the
district court in isolation rather than, as Octane requires, holistically under a
totality of the circumstances approach.
Third, it was not reviewing a proper totality of the circumstances fee
shifting analysis as Octane defined that process because the district court did not
perform one. The panels own de novo analysis was constrained by the particular,
and limited, facts that were presented to, and considered by, the district court in
order to prove the case exceptional under the very different, and much more
constrained, willful infringement standard. More facts now apply, including, for
example, continued infringing action by Defendants and their dilatory conduct
in failing to prosecute and refusing to stipulate to dismissal of their cross-appeal.
13
(17 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 17 of 18
14
(18 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 18 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate
CM/ECF system on June 7, 2016. I certify that all participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
Dated: June 7, 2016
15
(19 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-2, Page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
(20
(1 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page12of
of67
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 13-17622
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-04991-CW
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO.,
LTD., a Chinese limited liability company,
FKA Ningbo Solar Electric Power Co.,
Ltd.; NBSOLAR USA INC., a California
corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
SUNEARTH, INC., a California
corporation; THE SOLARAY
CORPORATION, a Hawaiian corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO.,
LTD., a Chinese limited liability company,
FKA Ningbo Solar Electric Power Co.,
Ltd.; NBSOLAR USA INC., a California
corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-16096
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-04991-CW
(21
(2 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page23of
of67
(22
(3 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page34of
of67
here, give the trademark holder adequate notice of the enjoined partys
permissible uses. See GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1211
(9th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not err in determining that this was not an exceptional
case. The district court did not clearly err in its determination that SESPs
infringing conduct was the result of a negligent failure to investigate, not
malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful infringement. See Fifty-Six Hope Rd.
Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). Nor did the
district court clearly err in determining that SESPs missteps in its efforts to
comply with the preliminary injunction were the result of incompetence and
carelessness, not intentional mistakes. Appellants argue that a recent Supreme
Court case interpreting the Patent Act altered the definition of exceptional under
the Lanham Acts fee-shifting provision. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health
& Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014). Appellants argue that under Octane
Fitness the district court should have analyzed their claim for fees under a totality
of the circumstances test instead of looking to our prior case law requiring
malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful infringement. We are bound by a
post-Octane Fitness panels decision applying our prior definition of exceptional.
(23
(4 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page45of
of67
See Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 778 F.3d at 1078 (citing Gracie v. Gracie, 217
F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Further, given the district courts findings, we have little doubt that this case
is unexceptional even under Octane Fitnesss totality of the circumstances test.
SESPs products bear the Sun Earth name abroad. The district court found that
SESPs lead executive credibly and consistently testified that SESP did not
intend to copy Sun Earths mark but instead sought to unify its U.S. brand with its
global brand. SESP also successfully registered its mark with the USPTO and the
district court credited SESPs explanation that it mistakenly believed that this
registration established non-infringement. As to the websites, the district court
found that SESPs post-injunction failure to implement choice pages was due to IT
incompetence and that SESP voluntarily brought itself into compliance after Sun
Earth filed its contempt motion. As to the labels, the district court determined that
SESPs original label violated the modified preliminary injunction because it
included the manufacturers name at the top as opposed to the bottom of the label.
The label included the words Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd. next to a NBSolar
logo, and in the same size font as the other text on the label. Again, the district
court found that SESP voluntarily complied once notified of the deficiency.
Similarly, the district court found that SESPs various factual misstatements in its
4
(24
(5 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page56of
of67
court filings were due to mistake and carelessness and were affirmatively
acknowledged and corrected. Finally, SESPs brief assertion of non-frivolous,
state-law counterclaims cannot make this a case of exceptional infringement
under the Lanham Act.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order contempt
sanctions against SESP for infringing content on its independent distributors
websites. The injunction only applied to websites maintained by SESP. Sun Earth,
Inc. has not shown that SESP engaged in the type of knowing, affirmative conduct
necessary for it to have aided or abetted its distributors violations. See Inst. of
Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Socy, 774 F.3d 935, 95052
(9th Cir. 2014).
Appellants also request attorneys fees as damages for time expended
responding to SESPs cross appeal. SESP filed a cross appeal, failed to prosecute
it, but refused to stipulate to dismissal. We recognize that appellants may be
entitled to a modest fee award due to this dilatory conduct, see 28 U.S.C. 1912,
Fed. R. App. P. 38, and refer appellants motion to the Appellate Commissioner.
See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9.
(25
(6 of 11)
41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/24/2016,ID:
ID:10005756,
9988184, DktEntry:
DktEntry:65-1,
66-2,Page
Page67of
of67
(26 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-3, Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
(27 of 41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/01/2015,ID:
ID:10005756,
9522189, DktEntry:
DktEntry: 66-3,
41, Page
Page1 2ofof2 3
Norman P. Soloway*
Stephen B. Mosier
Todd A. Sullivan
Thomas J. Rossa**
Huw R. Jones***
Clark E. Proffitt
Daniel H. Landau
May 1, 2015
Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
RE:
TUCSON, AZ
*Admitted in NY and MA; practice in AZ limited to Patent, Trademark and Federal Matters
** Admitted in UT; practice in AZ limited to Patent, Trademark and Federal Matters
*** Admitted in IL and DC; practice in AZ limited to Patent, Trademark and Federal Matters
(28 of 41)
Case:
Case:13-17622,
13-17622,06/07/2016,
05/01/2015,ID:
ID:10005756,
9522189, DktEntry:
DktEntry: 66-3,
41, Page
Page2 3ofof2 3
Molly C. Dwyer
Page 2
May 1, 2015
consider when the prevailing party could recover its attorneys fees. Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014). Both parties
in this appeal have cited Octane Fitness.
Supplemental Authorities: Two circuit courts have now held that the new
Octane Fitness patent law exceptional case analysis also controls when courts
consider fee awards in trademark cases. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764
F. 3d 303, 313-345 (3rd Cir.2014); Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v. Von
Drehle Corp., 781 F.3d 710 at *26-*27 (4th Cir. 2015). Another has suggested as
much, without expressly so holding. Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy
Store, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5475, 10-11 (6th Cir. Ohio 2015).1
Appellant is unaware of any case before any Circuit Court of Appeals that
has addressed the issue and declined to apply the analysis of Octane Fitness in the
context of 17 U.S.C. 1117(a)(3).
Respectfully,
In
Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059, 1078 (9th
Cir. 2015)) upholding a finding of an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. 1117, the
parties briefing in that case had closed prior to the Supreme Courts Octane
Fitness decision, and this Court did not sua sponte address or mention the issues
raised by the Octane Fitness decision at all.
(29 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 1 of 13
ATTACHMENT 3
1 of 13
(30 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 2 of 13
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-17519
Nature of Suit: 3840 Trademark
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd, et al v. Jem Sportswear, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Nevada, Las Vegas
Fee Status: Paid
Docketed: 11/09/2012
Termed: 02/20/2015
Current Cases:
Lead
Member
Start
End
12-17502
12-17519
12-17595
12-17519
13-15407
13-15407
11/09/2012
03/04/2013
03/04/2013
12-17502
13-15407
03/12/2013
12-17502
12-17502
12-17519
12-17519
12-17595
13-15407
12-17595
13-15473
12-17595
13-15473
13-15473
13-15473
11/21/2012
03/15/2013
11/21/2012
03/15/2013
03/15/2013
03/15/2013
Companion
Consolidated
Cross-Appeal
Paul Bost
Direct: 310-228-3700
[COR NTC Retained]
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Suite # 1600
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
Jill Maria Pietrini, Attorney
Direct: 310-228-3700
[COR NTC Retained]
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Suite 1600
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
L. Christopher Rose, Esquire
Direct: 702-699-7500
[COR NTC Retained]
Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
2 of 13
(31 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 3 of 13
Sixteenth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
William R. Urga, Esquire
Direct: 702-699-7500
[COR NTC Retained]
Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little
16th Floor
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Sixteenth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Karin Dougan Vogel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 619-338-6532
[COR NTC Retained]
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Suite 1900
501 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
ZION ROOTSWEAR, LLC
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Paul Bost
Direct: 310-228-3700
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Timothy Joseph Ervin, Attorney
Direct: 978-256-6041
[COR NTC Retained]
Gallant & Ervin LLC
Firm: 978-256-6041
One Olde North Rd., Suite 103
Chemsford, MA 01824
Jill Maria Pietrini, Attorney
Direct: 310-228-3700
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
L. Christopher Rose, Esquire
Direct: 702-699-7500
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
William R. Urga, Esquire
Direct: 702-699-7500
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Karin Dougan Vogel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 619-338-6532
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
v.
A.V.E.L.A., INC.
Defendant,
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
3 of 13
(32 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 4 of 13
(see above)
CENTRAL MILLS, INC. (FREEZE)
Defendant,
LEO VALENCIA
Defendant,
JEM SPORTSWEAR
Defendant - Appellant,
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
4 of 13
(33 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 5 of 13
FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD.; ZION ROOTSWEAR, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
A.V.E.L.A., INC.; X ONE X MOVIE ARCHIVE, INC.; CENTRAL MILLS, INC. (FREEZE); LEO VALENCIA,
Defendants,
and
JEM SPORTSWEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
5 of 13
(34 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 6 of 13
11/09/2012
1
10 pg, 198.75 KB
11/09/2012
2
5 pg, 126.83 KB
11/15/2012
3
5 pg, 133.17 KB
11/15/2012
4
7 pg, 276.74 KB
11/21/2012
5
17 pg, 639.26 KB
11/28/2012
11/28/2012
11/28/2012
Filed (ECF) Appellant Jem Sportswear Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/15/2012. [8402828]
(Yates, John) [Entered: 11/15/2012 10:29 AM]
Filed (ECF) Appellant Jem Sportswear Correspondence: notice of designation of portions of transcripts to
be included in record on appeal and statement of issues to be presented on appeal. Date of service:
11/15/2012. [8402851]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. Resent NDA.
11/15/2012 by RY] (Yates, John) [Entered: 11/15/2012 10:35 AM]
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. Setting crossappeal briefing schedule as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 11/28/2012. First cross appeal brief
due 02/19/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Jem Sportswear, Leo Valencia and X
ONE X Movie Archive, Inc.. Second brief on cross appeal due 03/21/2013 for Fifty-Six Hope Road Music,
Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC. Third brief on cross appeal due 04/22/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central
Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Jem Sportswear, Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. Optional cross appeal
reply brief is due 14 days from service of third cross appeal brief. [8411468] [12-17595, 12-17502,
12-17519] (GR) [Entered: 11/21/2012 12:27 PM]
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Karin Dougan Vogel for Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd.
and Zion Rootswear, LLC. Date of service: 11/28/2012. [8418715] (Vogel, Karin) [Entered: 11/28/2012
04:26 PM]
Added attorney Karin Dougan Vogel for Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. Zion Rootswear, LLC, in case
12-17519. [8418749] (EL) [Entered: 11/28/2012 04:38 PM]
Filed (ECF) Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/28/2012. [8418322]--[COURT UPDATE: Spread docket text to 12-17502
and 12-17519. Resent NDA. 11/29/2012 by RY] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 11/28/2012 02:42 PM]
9
3 pg, 34.55 KB
01/04/2013
Filed Appellant Jem Sportswear Mediation Questionnaire. Served on 11/07/2012. [8396735] (GR)
[Entered: 11/09/2012 02:53 PM]
2 pg, 55.29 KB
4 pg, 166.96 KB
11/29/2012
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is
set as follows: Transcript ordered by 12/10/2012. Transcript due 01/08/2013. Appellant Jem Sportswear
opening brief due 02/19/2013. Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC
answering brief due 03/21/2013. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the
answering brief. [8396728] (GR) [Entered: 11/09/2012 02:51 PM]
10
2 pg, 24.66 KB
Filed order MEDIATION (VLS): These cases are under consideration for inclusion in the Mediation
Program. Within 14 days of the date of this order, counsel for all parties intending to file briefs in this matter
are requested to inform Stephen Liacouras, Circuit Mediator, in writing, by email at
stephen_liacouras@ca9.uscourts.gov, of their clients views on whether the case is appropriate for
settlement discussions or mediation. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, from the
other parties in the case. This communication shall not be served on the opposing party and shall not be
filed with the court. For more detailed information about the Mediation Program and its procedures
generally, please see Mediation Program web site: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation. The existing briefing
schedule remains in effect pending the determination whether the case will be selected for inclusion in the
Mediation Program. [8420242] [12-17502, 12-17595, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 11/29/2012 03:47 PM]
Filed order MEDIATION (SL): The court has determined that these appeals will not be selected for
inclusion in the Mediation Program. [8461508] [12-17502, 12-17595, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 01/04/2013
11:20 AM]
01/23/2013
11
Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Jem Sportswear.
New requested due date is 03/21/2013. [8483968] (Yates, John) [Entered: 01/23/2013 10:37 AM]
01/23/2013
12
Streamlined request [11] by Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519 to extend time to file the brief is
approved. Amended briefing schedule: First cross appeal brief due 03/21/2013 for Jem Sportswear.
Second brief on cross appeal due 04/22/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze) and
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd.. Third brief on cross appeal due 05/22/2013 for Jem Sportswear.
The optional reply brief is due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [8485349]
[12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595] (LKK) [Entered: 01/23/2013 04:40 PM]
01/24/2013
13
Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file First Brief on Cross-Appeal by Appellants
A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17502.
New requested due date is 03/21/2013. [8486336] [12-17502, 12-17595, 12-17519] (Woo, Melissa)
[Entered: 01/24/2013 11:56 AM]
01/24/2013
14
Streamlined request [13] by - A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. to
extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: First cross appeal brief due
03/21/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc.. Second brief on
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
6 of 13
(35 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 7 of 13
cross appeal due 04/22/2013 for Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze) and Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd..
Third brief on cross appeal due 05/22/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia, X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. and Jem Sportswear. The optional reply brief is due 14 days from the date of service
of the answering brief. [8486480] (LKK) [Entered: 01/24/2013 01:01 PM]
03/11/2013
15
9 pg, 835.16 KB
03/12/2013
16
3 pg, 27.54 KB
03/15/2013
17
18 pg, 648.06 KB
03/21/2013
18
703 pg, 21.15 MB
03/22/2013
19
3 pg, 98.56 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519,
Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595 Stipulated Motion to
consolidate cases 12-17502. 12-17519, 12-17595 and 13-15407. Date of service: 03/11/2013. [8545785]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 03/11/2013 03:32 PM]
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CAG): The parties joint motion to consolidate is granted. Nos. 12-17502
and 13- 15407 proceed as consolidated appeals. The parties request that the briefing schedule be reset is
granted in part. The first brief on cross appeal is due May 24, 2013; the second brief is due June 24, 2013;
the third brief on cross-appeal is due July 24, 2013. If the parties need additional time to file their briefs, the
parties may file a motion pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). The parties motion for leave to file
oversize briefs is denied without prejudice to renewed motions that are accompanied be the proposed
briefs. Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2. [8547787] [12-17502, 12-17595, 12-17519, 13-15407] (AF) [Entered:
03/12/2013 03:17 PM]
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. Setting crossappeal briefing schedule as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/22/2013. First cross appeal brief
due 05/24/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Jem Sportswear, Leo Valencia and X
ONE X Movie Archive, Inc.. Second brief on cross appeal due 06/24/2013 for Fifty-Six Hope Road Music,
Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC. Third brief on cross appeal due 07/24/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central
Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Jem Sportswear, Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. Optional cross appeal
reply brief is due 14 days from service of third cross appeal brief. [8551838] [13-15473, 12-17502,
12-17595, 13-15407, 12-17519] (GR) [Entered: 03/15/2013 08:25 AM]
Submitted (ECF) First Brief on Cross-Appeal and excerpts of record for review. Submitted by - Jem
Sportswear in 12-17502, Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, Appellee Jem Sportswear in 12-17595,
13-15473. Date of service: 03/21/2013. [8560229] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519]
(Yates, John) [Entered: 03/21/2013 03:52 PM]
Filed clerk order: The first brief on cross-appeal [18] submitted by Jem Sportswear is filed. Within 7 days of
the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by
certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted
electronically. Cover color: blue. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief
created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed
the excerpts of record [18] submitted by Jem Sportswear in 12-17519. Within 7 days of this order, filer is
ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the
format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [8560893] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407,
12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 03/22/2013 10:08 AM]
03/25/2013
20
Filed Appellant Jem Sportswear paper copies of excerpts of record [18] in 3 volume(s). [8563938]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 03/26/2013 07:15 AM]
03/26/2013
21
Received 7 paper copies of First Brief on Cross-Appeal brief [18] filed by Jem Sportswear. [8564958]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (SD) [Entered: 03/26/2013 02:24 PM]
22
Submitted (ECF) First Brief on Cross-Appeal for review. Submitted by Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central
Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17502. Date of service:
05/24/2013. [8643052] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited
docket text to reflect content of filing (brief only, no excerpts). Resent NDA. 05/28/2013 by RY] (Woo,
Melissa) [Entered: 05/24/2013 03:11 PM]
05/24/2013
77 pg, 438.62 KB
05/28/2013
23
3 pg, 103.01 KB
05/28/2013
24
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
7 of 13
(36 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 8 of 13
05/31/2013
25
06/05/2013
26
Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Second Brief on Cross-Appeal by Appellees
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519, Appellants Fifty-Six
Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473. New requested due
date is 07/24/2013 at 11:59 pm. [8656354] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Vogel,
Karin) [Entered: 06/05/2013 02:36 PM]
06/05/2013
27
Streamlined request [26] by Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in
12-17502, 12-17519, Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in
12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473 to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing
schedule: Second brief on cross appeal due 07/24/2013 for Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and
Zion Rootswear, LLC. Third brief on cross appeal due 08/23/2013 for A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills,
Inc. (Freeze), Jem Sportswear, Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc.. The optional reply
brief is due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [8656557] [12-17502, 12-17595,
13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (LN) [Entered: 06/05/2013 03:31 PM]
28
Filed (ECF) Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519,
Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473
Stipulated Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 08/14/2013. Date of service: 07/11/2013.
[8700380] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 07/11/2013 03:31
PM]
07/11/2013
5 pg, 107.64 KB
07/15/2013
07/15/2013
29
defendants obtained ext of time to file 3rd brief; not eligible for SL request [8703140] [12-17502, 12-17595,
13-15407, 12-17519] (CB) [Entered: 07/15/2013 09:59 AM]
30
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CB): The joint second request for an extension of time to file the second
crossappeal brief is granted. Plaintiffs second brief is due August 14, 2013. Defendants third brief(s) shall
be due September 20, 2013. Plaintiffs optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the third
brief. Defendants are reminded of the courts preference for joint briefing. 9th Cir. R .28-4. [8703385]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 07/15/2013 10:46 AM]
3 pg, 37.2 KB
08/14/2013
31
105 pg, 585.69 KB
08/14/2013
32
1093 pg, 69.15 MB
08/15/2013
33
3 pg, 103.05 KB
08/15/2013
34
1 pg, 33.95 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519,
Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473
Motion to file oversized brief. Date of service: 08/14/2013. [8743567] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473,
13-15407, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 08/14/2013 09:48 PM]
Submitted (ECF) Second Brief on Cross-Appeal and excerpts of record for review. Submitted by Appellees
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519, Appellants Fifty-Six
Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473. Date of service:
08/14/2013. [8743568] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered:
08/14/2013 09:52 PM]
Filed clerk order: The second brief on cross-appeal [32] submitted by Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and
Zion Rootswear, LLC is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the
brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the
brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The paper copies shall be printed
from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or
Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [32] submitted by Fifty-Six
Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered
to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format
described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [8743664] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519]
(WWP) [Entered: 08/15/2013 08:08 AM]
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CB): Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an overlength brief is granted. The
previously submitted brief has been filed. The current schedule continues to govern the remainder of
briefing. Plaintiffs are reminded that a motion should provide the position of opposing counsel with regard
to the requested relief. Advisory Committee Note to Rule 27-1. [8744178] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473,
13-15407, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 08/15/2013 11:26 AM]
08/22/2013
35
Filed Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC paper copies of excerpts of
record [32] in 4 volume(s). [8753682] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP)
[Entered: 08/23/2013 07:38 AM]
08/22/2013
36
Received 7 paper copies of Second Brief on Cross-Appeal brief [32] filed by Fifty-Six Hope Road Music,
Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC. [8753850] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (SD)
[Entered: 08/23/2013 09:15 AM]
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
8 of 13
(37 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 9 of 13
09/04/2013
37
Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Third Brief on Cross-Appeal by - Jem
Sportswear in 12-17502, Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, Appellee Jem Sportswear in 12-17595,
13-15473. New requested due date is 10/21/2013. [8767713] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407,
12-17519] (Yates, John) [Entered: 09/04/2013 11:22 AM]
09/04/2013
38
Streamlined request [37] by Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519 to extend time to file the brief is
approved. Amended briefing schedule: Third brief on cross appeal due 10/21/2013 for Jem
Sportswear. The optional reply brief is due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief.
[8768109] [12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407] (JN) [Entered: 09/04/2013 01:50 PM]
39
Filed (ECF) Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. in 12-17502, Appellees A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE
X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17595, Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive,
Inc. in 13-15407, 13-15473 Motion to extend time to file Third Brief on Cross-Appeal brief until 12/05/2013
at 05:00 pm. Date of service: 10/08/2013. [8813354] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407]--[COURT
UPDATE: Spread docket text to 12-17519. Resent NDA. 10/08/2013 by RY] (Woo, Melissa) [Entered:
10/08/2013 11:33 AM]
10/08/2013
8 pg, 104.79 KB
10/10/2013
41
1 pg, 33.22 KB
10/21/2013
42
76 pg, 1.78 MB
10/22/2013
43
3 pg, 103.1 KB
10/23/2013
10/23/2013
10/24/2013
12/03/2013
45
Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, Jem Sportswear in 12-17502, Appellee Jem Sportswear in 12-17595, 13-15473. Date of service:
10/23/2013. [8833843] [12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407] (Yates, John) [Entered:
10/23/2013 03:38 PM]
47
Filed Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519 paper copies of excerpts of record [42] in 1 volume.
[8836686] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 10/25/2013 09:48 AM]
46
Filed clerk order: The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [45] submitted by Jem
Sportswear in 12-17519. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper
format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6.
[8834373] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 10/24/2013 08:20 AM]
48
Filed Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519 paper copies of excerpts of record [45] in 1 volume(s).
[8839694] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 10/28/2013 02:11 PM]
49
Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, February 13, 2014 - 9:30 AM - Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor - James R.
Browning US Courthouse - San Francisco, CA. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING
NOTICE form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your
case. [8886904] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (RB) [Entered: 12/03/2013 03:32
PM]
9 pg, 466.55 KB
12/04/2013
Filed clerk order: The third brief on cross-appeal [42] submitted by Jem Sportswear is filed. Within 7 days
of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by
certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted
electronically. Cover color: yellow. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief
created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed
the supplemental excerpts of record [42] submitted by Jem Sportswear in 12-17519. Within 7 days of this
order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies
must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [8830314] [12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595,
13-15473, 13-15407] (WWP) [Entered: 10/22/2013 08:11 AM]
Received 7 paper copies of Third Brief on Cross-Appeal brief [42] filed by Jem Sportswear. [8833697]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (SD) [Entered: 10/23/2013 03:09 PM]
3 pg, 101.65 KB
10/25/2013
Submitted (ECF) Third Brief on Cross-Appeal and supplemental excerpts of record for review. Submitted
by Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, - Jem Sportswear in 12-17502, Appellee Jem Sportswear in
12-17595, 13-15473. Date of service: 10/21/2013. [8830047] [12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473,
13-15407] (Yates, John) [Entered: 10/21/2013 04:34 PM]
44
10/23/2013
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CB): The motion of A.V.E.L.A., et al., for an extension of time to file the
third brief on cross-appeal is granted. The brief is due December 5, 2013. The optionaL reply brief is due
within 14 days after service of the latter served brief. [8817018] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407,
12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 10/10/2013 10:37 AM]
50
1 pg, 19.11 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. John Root
Yates, Esquire for Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, Attorney Mr. John Root Yates, Esquire for
Appellee Jem Sportswear in 12-17595, 13-15473. [8887637] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407,
12-17519] (Yates, John) [Entered: 12/04/2013 10:36 AM]
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
9 of 13
(38 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 10 of 13
12/04/2013
51
1 pg, 85.84 KB
12/05/2013
52
1 pg, 39 KB
12/05/2013
53
1 pg, 74.46 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Mr. Paul Bost, Esquire
for Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC and Mrs. Jill Maria Pietrini for
Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519, Mr. Paul
Bost, Esquire for Appellant Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Mrs. Jill Maria Pietrini for Appellants
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473. [8889214]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 12/04/2013 05:00 PM]
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Timothy
Joseph Ervin for Appellee Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502. [8890408] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473,
13-15407, 12-17519] (Ervin, Timothy) [Entered: 12/05/2013 01:38 PM]
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Ms. Melissa
Wing Yee Woo for Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia, X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. and Central
Mills, Inc. (Freeze) in 12-17502. [8890614] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Woo,
Melissa) [Entered: 12/05/2013 02:15 PM]
12/09/2013
54
Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Cross-Appeal Reply Brief by Appellee Fifty-Six
Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17502, 12-17519, Appellant Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17595,
13-15407, 13-15473. New requested due date is 01/21/2014. [8893895] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473,
13-15407, 12-17519] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 12/09/2013 11:43 AM]
12/09/2013
55
Streamlined request [54] by Appellant Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17595, Appellee
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17502, 12-17519, 13-15407, 13-15473 to extend time to file the
brief is not approved because a Notice of Oral Argument has issued; a Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b)
motion is needed. [8894124] [12-17595, 12-17502, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (LBS) [Entered:
12/09/2013 01:15 PM]
12/09/2013
57
Filed Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive,
Inc. in 12-17502 paper copies of excerpts of record [8891684-2] in 1 volume. [8897647] [12-17502,
12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (sent to PANEL) (WWP) [Entered: 12/11/2013 01:35 PM]
12/10/2013
56
Streamlined request by Appellant Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17595, Appellee Fifty-Six Hope
Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17502, 12-17519, 13-15407, 13-15473 to extend time to file the brief is not
approved because a Notice of Oral Argument has issued; a Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b) motion is needed.
[8896471] [13-15473, 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15407, 12-17519] (LBS) [Entered: 12/10/2013 03:53 PM]
58
Filed (ECF) Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, Appellants
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473 Unopposed
Motion to extend time to file Cross-Appeal Reply Brief brief until 01/21/2014. Date of service: 12/16/2013.
[8902676] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407]--[COURT UPDATE: Spread entry to 12-17519,
resent notice. 12/16/2013 by ASW] (Bost, Paul) [Entered: 12/16/2013 11:55 AM]
12/16/2013
6 pg, 200.43 KB
12/30/2013
59
5 pg, 93.08 KB
01/03/2014
60
3 pg, 47.02 KB
02/20/2014
62
3 pg, 36.96 KB
02/20/2014
63
3 pg, 101.68 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. in 12-17502, - A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. in 12-17519, Appellees A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE
X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17595, Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive,
Inc. in 13-15407, 13-15473 Stipulated Motion to continue hearing of case. Date of service: 12/30/2013.
[8919127] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Woo, Melissa) [Entered: 12/30/2013
11:08 AM]
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): Pursuant to the parties joint request, oral argument shall be
rescheduled. The date and time will be determined by separate order. [8923798] [12-17502, 12-17595,
13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 01/03/2014 09:31 AM]
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Granting Motion (ECF Filing) The defendants motion for leave to
file an oversize third brief on cross-appeal is granted. The Clerk shall file the previously submitted brief.
The plaintiffs motion for an extension of time is granted. The reply brief is due within 14 days after the date
of this order. (Pro Mo) [8985650] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (MS) [Entered:
02/20/2014 01:43 PM]
Filed clerk order: The third brief on cross-appeal [8891329-2] submitted by A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills,
Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this
order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to
the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover
color: yellow. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word
processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental
excerpts of record [8891684-2] submitted by A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia
and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts
in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
10 of 13
(39 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 11 of 13
30-1.6. [8986569] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (LA) [Entered: 02/20/2014 05:18
PM]
02/24/2014
64
3 pg, 103.35 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: cag): Granting Motion (ECF Filing) filed by Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd.
and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473; . The optional reply brief is due
3/20/14. [8989135] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (CG) [Entered: 02/24/2014
10:15 AM]
02/26/2014
65
Filed Appellant A.V.E.L.A., INC. in 12-17502 paper copies of excerpts of record [8891684-2] in 1 volume.
[8998550] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 03/03/2014 09:08 AM]
02/26/2014
66
Received 7 paper copies of Third Brief on Cross-Appeal [8891329-2] filed by A.V.E.L.A., INC., et al.
[8999197] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (SD) [Entered: 03/03/2014 01:18 PM]
67
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CAG): Counsel Andrew Cranner and the law firm of Bremmer, Whyte,
Brown, and OMearas motion to withdraw as counsel of record for AV.E.L.A., Inc., Leo Valencia, X One, X
Movie Archive, Inc. And Central Mills, Inc. is granted. The defendants are reminded that as corporations
they must be represented by licensed counsel. See In re Highley, 459 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir. 1986). Nos.
12-17502, etc. Within 14 days after the date of this order, the defendants shall enter the appearance of
new counsel. A copy of this order shall be provided to the defendants by way of Leo Valencia, 1135
Terminal Way, Suite 209, Reno, NV 89502; and Kim Cauley, 1400 Broadway , Suite 1605, New York, NY
10018. [9002355] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (BJB) [Entered: 03/05/2014 09:12
AM]
03/05/2014
5 pg, 47.45 KB
03/05/2014
03/17/2014
68
Terminated Peter Carlton Brown for X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc., Leo Valencia, Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze)
and A.V.E.L.A., INC. in 12-17502, X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc., Leo Valencia, Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze)
and A.V.E.L.A., INC. in 12-17595, X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc., Leo Valencia and A.V.E.L.A., INC. in
13-15407 and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc., Leo Valencia, Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze) and A.V.E.L.A., INC.
in 13-15473 [9002387] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (BJB) [Entered: 03/05/2014
09:22 AM]
69
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Michael Ray Adele for Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17502, - A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17519, Appellees A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central
Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17595, Appellants A.V.E.L.A.,
INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 13-15407, 13-15473. Date of service: 03/17/2014.
[9019228] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Adele, Michael) [Entered: 03/17/2014
04:09 PM]
2 pg, 403.81 KB
03/17/2014
03/20/2014
70
Added attorney Michael Ray Adele for X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. A.V.E.L.A., INC. Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze) Leo Valencia, [9019255] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (EL) [Entered:
03/17/2014 04:15 PM]
71
Submitted (ECF) Cross-Appeal Reply Brief and supplemental excerpts of record for review. Submitted by
Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 13-15473. Date of service:
03/20/2014. [9025163] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473]--[COURT UPDATE: Spread docket text to
13-15407, 12-17519. Resent NDA. 03/21/2014 by RY] (Pietrini, Jill) [Entered: 03/20/2014 06:46 PM]
92 pg, 2 MB
03/21/2014
72
3 pg, 103.07 KB
Filed clerk order: The cross-appeal reply brief [71] submitted by Zion Rootswear, LLC, Fifty-Six Hope Road
Music, Ltd. is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in
paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is
identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: gray. The paper copies shall be printed from
the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate
ECF. The Court has reviewed the excerpts of record [71] submitted by Zion Rootswear, LLC, Fifty-Six
Hope Road Music, Ltd. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper
format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6.
[9025713] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered: 03/21/2014 10:44 AM]
03/27/2014
73
Filed Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC paper copies of excerpts of
record [71] in 1 volume. [9033912] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (WWP) [Entered:
03/27/2014 11:47 AM]
03/27/2014
74
Received 7 paper copies of Cross Appeal Reply brief [71] filed by Zion Rootswear, LLC and Fifty-Six Hope
Road Music, Ltd. [9034253] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (SD) [Entered:
03/27/2014 01:57 PM]
04/28/2014
75
Notice of Oral Argument on Tuesday, 07/08/2014 - 9:00 AM San Francisco, CA Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Browning US Courthouse.
View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
11 of 13
(40 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 12 of 13
When you have reviewed the calendar, download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form,
complete the form, and file it via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office.
[9074629] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (RB) [Entered: 04/28/2014 01:57 PM]
04/28/2014
76
1 pg, 19.08 KB
05/06/2014
77
1 pg, 76.27 KB
05/08/2014
78
2 pg, 1.23 MB
05/09/2014
05/09/2014
02/20/2015
80
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Michael
Bergman for Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia, X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. and Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze) in 12-17502. [9089907] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Bergman,
Michael) [Entered: 05/09/2014 01:15 PM]
81
83
84
3 pg, 71.03 KB
03/06/2015
85
3 pg, 90.04 KB
03/06/2015
86
80 pg, 1.9 MB
03/23/2015
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Timothy
Joseph Ervin for Appellee Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519, Attorney Mr. Timothy Joseph Ervin
for Appellant Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473. [9093192] [12-17502, 12-17595,
13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Ervin, Timothy) [Entered: 05/13/2014 11:45 AM]
82
54 pg, 365.39 KB
03/06/2015
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Michael Bergman for Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17502. Date of service: 05/08/2014.
[9089127] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Bergman, Michael) [Entered: 05/08/2014
05:19 PM]
Added attorney Michael Bergman for X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. A.V.E.L.A., INC. Central Mills, Inc.
(Freeze) Leo Valencia, in case 12-17502 Michael Bergman for X ONE X Movie Archive, Inc. A.V.E.L.A.,
INC. Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze) Leo Valencia, in case 13-15473 Michael Bergman for X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. A.V.E.L.A., INC. Leo Valencia, in case 13-15407 Michael Bergman for X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. A.V.E.L.A., INC. Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze) Leo Valencia, in case 12-17595. [9089198]
[12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (CW) [Entered: 05/09/2014 07:16 AM]
1 pg, 64.17 KB
07/08/2014
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Mr. Paul Bost, Esquire
for Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC and Mrs. Jill Maria Pietrini for
Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502. [9084857] [12-17502,
12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (Bost, Paul) [Entered: 05/06/2014 12:23 PM]
79
1 pg, 850.79 KB
05/13/2014
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. John Root
Yates, Esquire for Appellant Jem Sportswear in 12-17519, Attorney Mr. John Root Yates, Esquire for
Appellee Jem Sportswear in 12-17595, 13-15473. [9075075] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407,
12-17519] (Yates, John) [Entered: 04/28/2014 03:41 PM]
87
4 pg, 153.8 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17502, 12-17519, Appellant Fifty-Six Hope
Road Music, Ltd. in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473 bill of costs (Form 10) in the amount of $632.70 USD.
Date of service: 03/06/2015 [9448552] [12-17502, 12-17519, 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473] (Pietrini, Jill)
[Entered: 03/06/2015 02:37 PM]
Filed (ECF) - Jem Sportswear in 12-17502 bill of costs (Form 10) in the amount of $528.5 USD. Date of
service: 03/06/2015 [9448829] [12-17502, 12-17519, 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473] (Yates, John)
[Entered: 03/06/2015 04:10 PM]
Filed (ECF) Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. in 12-17502, - A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie
Archive, Inc. in 12-17519, Appellees A.V.E.L.A., INC., Central Mills, Inc. (Freeze), Leo Valencia and X ONE
X Movie Archive, Inc. in 12-17595, Appellants A.V.E.L.A., INC., Leo Valencia and X ONE X Movie Archive,
Inc. in 13-15407, 13-15473 petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/20/2015
opinion). Date of service: 03/06/2015. [9449005] [12-17502, 12-17519, 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473]
(Adele, Michael) [Entered: 03/06/2015 06:30 PM]
Filed (ECF) Appellees Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17502, 12-17519,
Appellants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC in 12-17595, 13-15407, 13-15473
response opposing motion (). Date of service: 03/23/2015. [9468581] [12-17502, 12-17519, 12-17595,
13-15407, 13-15473] (Bost, Paul) [Entered: 03/23/2015 06:51 PM]
5/31/2016 7:05 PM
12 of 13
(41 of 41)
Case: 13-17622, 06/07/2016, ID: 10005756, DktEntry: 66-4, Page 13 of 13
04/02/2015
88
3 pg, 35.84 KB
04/16/2015
89
3 pg, 204.78 KB
09/03/2015
90
1 pg, 53.68 KB
11/03/2015
91
1 pg, 63.02 KB
Filed order (FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, N. RANDY SMITH and MORGAN B. CHRISTEN): The panel
has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge N.R. Smith and Judge Christen have voted to
deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Fernandez has so recommended. The full court was
advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the
matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are
DENIED. [9481370] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (AF) [Entered: 04/02/2015
09:13 AM]
MANDATE ISSUED.(FFF, NRS and MBC) Costs taxed against Appellant in the amount of $632.70.
[9498031] [12-17519, 12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407] (SW) [Entered: 04/16/2015 10:46 AM]
Received notice from the Supreme Court: petition for certiorari filed on 06/29/2015. Supreme Court
Number 15-264. [9672193] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (RR) [Entered:
09/03/2015 05:24 PM]
The petition for writ of certiorari was denied on 11/02/2015. Supreme Court number 15-264. (Panel: FFF,
NRS and MBC). [9743853] [12-17502, 12-17595, 13-15473, 13-15407, 12-17519] (RL) [Entered:
11/03/2015 05:15 PM]
5/31/2016 7:05 PM