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.

Grendene USA, Inc. v. Brady

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 30, 2015

GRENDENE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and GRENDENE S.A., a Brazil corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES W. BRADY and PATRICIA M. BRADY, Defendants.

ORDER: Ex Parte Request to File Sur-Reply; [ECF NO. 31] (1) GRANTING Grendene's (2) GRANTING the Bradys' Ex Parte Request to File Response to the Sur-Reply; [ECF NO. 32] (3) GRANTING the Bradys' Motion to Stay; [ECF NO. 25] (4) STAYING the case pending final resolution of the Trademark Action; (5) ORDERING the Bradys to file notice within thirty (30) days of the final resolution of the Trademark Action; (6) VACATING Hearing Date

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendants James W. Brady and Patricia M. Brady's (collectively, the "Bradys") Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 25), Plaintiffs Grendene USA, Inc. and Grendene S.A.'s (collectively, "Grendene") Ex Parte Request to File Sur-Reply, (ECF No. 31), and the Bradys' Ex Parte Request to File Response to the Sur-Reply, (ECF No. 32.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Grendene's Ex Parte Request to File Sur-Reply, GRANTS the Bradys' Ex Parte Request to File a Response to the Sur-Reply, and GRANTS the Bradys' Motion to Stay.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2012, the Bradys filed a complaint in a related action against Grendene alleging trademark infringement (the "Trademark Action"). Complaint, Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012), ECF No. 1.

On December 15, 2014, Grendene filed a complaint in this action against the Bradys alleging a breach of a February 16, 1995, settlement agreement between Made in Brazil, Inc., the Bradys' company, and the Ipanema Show Corporation ("ISC") (the "Settlement Agreement"). (ECF No. 1.) In its complaint in this action, Grendene alleges that: (1) it is a successor to the Settlement Agreement, and (2) the Bradys have breached the Settlement Agreement's covenant not to sue by filing the Trademark Action. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 21, 28.) Based on that breach, Grendene seeks damages for "attorneys' fees, costs and expenses." (Id. ¶ 35.)

On May 12, 2015, the Bradys filed a motion to stay this action pending final resolution of the Trademark Action. (ECF No. 25.) On May 29, 2015, Grendene submitted an opposition to the motion to stay. (ECF No. 28.)

On June 3, 2015, in the Trademark Action, the Court granted Grendene's motion for summary judgment, finding that Grendene was a successor to the Settlement Agreement. Order Granting Grendene's Partial Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012), ECF No. 295.

On June 5, 2015, in this action, the Bradys submitted a reply in support of their motion to stay pending final resolution of the Trademark Action because the Bradys intend to appeal the summary judgment in favor of Grendene. (ECF No. 29.) On June 11, 2015, Grendene submitted an ex parte request to file sur-reply.[1] (ECF No. 31.) On June 19, 2015, the Bradys submitted an ex parte request to file a response to Grendene's sur-reply.[2] (ECF No. 32.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has inherent powers "to control its own docket and to provide for the prompt and efficient determination of the cases pending before it." Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (concluding "a trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.")

A. Stay of Proceedings

"The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, "the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed." Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These interests include: "(1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and ...


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.