106 1 revamped motion.pdf


Preview of PDF document 106-1-revamped-motion.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Text preview


Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 106-1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:675

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation (“Slep-Tone”) respectfully

3
4

requests that the Court reconsider its Order dated January 15, 2013, pursuant to Rule

5

60(b)(6) or, in the alternative, under Rule 59(e), for the following reasons.

6

II.

ARGUMENT

7

The Trademark Act contains a fee-shifting provision that provides that the

8

Court “in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing

9

party.” 15 U. S. C. § 1117(a)(3). In its order, the Court found this case to be

10 “exceptional” under 15 U. S. C. § 1117(a)(3) and issued an order directing the
11 payment of attorney fees to Defendants Kelly Sugano and Taka-O.
Regardless of the Court’s conclusion that this matter constitutes an exceptional

12

13 case under the Trademark Act, the Court erred by awarding Defendants Sugano and
14 Taka-O attorney fees, because they are not a “prevailing party” under the applicable
15 law.
16

It is true that the Court issued an order on November 8, 2012, dismissing this

17 action with prejudice because of the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action.
18 Ordinarily, such a dismissal would render these Defendants prevailing parties.
19 However, the existence of a prior settlement agreement altered the parties’
20 relationship, such that the Defendants cannot be considered prevailing parties.
21

The centerpiece of the Defendants’ motion for attorney fees was the fact that

22 they had entered into a settlement agreement with Slep-Tone that provided for the
23 payment of money from the Defendants to Slep-Tone in exchange for certain other
24 consideration. While Slep-Tone’s attorney, who was and is inexplicably missing-in25 action, failed to cooperate with opposing counsel to prepare and file the necessary
26 dismissal paperwork, it cannot be disputed that the Court’s November 8 order gave to
27 the Defendants precisely the benefit of the bargain they claimed, in their motion for
28 attorney fees, not to have received: a dismissal of the action with prejudice.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
LA1 285578v3 02/12/13

1