Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hatteras Enterprises, Inc. v. Art Brands

November 21, 2012

HATTERAS ENTERPRISES, INC.
v.
ART BRANDS, LLC



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Ex Parte Application for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions

Before the Court is Plaintiff Hatteras Enterprises, Inc.'s ex parte application for a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and for sanctions. Dkt. # 115. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. Having considered the papers submitted in support of and opposition to the motion, the Court DENIES the motion.

Background

Plaintiff Hatteras Enterprises, Inc. ("Plaintiff") designs, manufactures, and distributes technology and finished goods that change color in the sunlight, including, inter alia, inks, nail polishes, toys, and beads. Compl. ¶ 19. Defendant Art Brands, LLC ("Defendant") manufactures heat applied "transfer" graphics for apparel and allegedly entered into an exclusive contract with Plaintiff to purchase screen printing ink, pay Plaintiff royalties, and provide branding credit to Plaintiff on apparel and printed material related to Plaintiff's color changing

Compl. ¶¶ 23-29. The alleged breach of that contract led to Plaintiff filing this action.

On September 13, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement, alleging that a settlement agreement had been reached through various email communications. See Dkt. # 59. On October 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, contending that the parties had never reached a formal settlement agreement. See Dkt. # 77. In its November 5, 2012 Reply Brief, Defendant requested that the Court enforce a separate agreement (the "Agreement"), dated October 6, 2012. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.