Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01155-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 For purposes of consistency, the court maintains the

same captioning originally used in the this matter. (See May 12,

2005 Order Re: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion

For Declaratory Relief). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BLUE MAGIC PRODUCTS, INC.,

(BOYD FLOTATION, INC., ALLEGED

SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN), 

NO. CIV. S-00-1155 WBS JFM

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-2398 WBS JFM

 

v. O R D E R

BLUE MAGIC, INC., et al., (THE

RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

SUCCESSOR),

Defendant.

______________________________

BOYD FLOTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.1

----oo0oo----

Case 2:00-cv-01155-WBS -JFM Document 316 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Rectorseal Corporation (“Rectorseal”) has filed a

bill of costs and motion for award of attorneys’ fees set for

hearing on August 8, 2005. Boyd Flotation, Inc. (“Boyd

Flotation”) has filed an ex parte application to continue the

hearing on Rectorseal’s motion to August 22, 2005. (See Pls.’ Ex

Parte Application For Continuance of Hearing (“Pl.s’ Ex Parte

Application”) at 1). Boyd Flotation’s counsel, Kenneth C.

Mennemeier, states in a signed declaration that he will be on

vacation with his family the week of the hearing and that he

believes it is important for him to cover the hearing on behalf

of his client. (Mennemeier Decl. in Supp. of Pl.’s Ex Parte

Application ¶¶ 3, 7). These constitute sufficient reasons for

granting Boyd Flotation’s application. 

However, the court notes that Rectorseal objects to

Boyd Flotation’s application for a continuance on the grounds

that the continuance would cause Rectorseal to incur additional

travel expenses that could otherwise be avoided if the hearing

date were to remain undisturbed. (See Baker Decl. in Supp. Of

Def.’s Response & Objection to Pl.’s Ex Parte Application ¶ 8). 

In light of Rectorseal’s objection, the court will allow

Rectorseal’s counsel to appear at the newly scheduled hearing

telephonically if he so chooses. This option should allow

Rectorseal to avoid incurring any additional travel expenses as a

result of the continuance. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the hearing on defendant’s

bills of costs and motion for award of attorneys’ fees is 

///

///

Case 2:00-cv-01155-WBS -JFM Document 316 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

continued from August 8, 2005 to August 22, 2005. Defendant’s

attorney may appear at the August 22, 2005 hearing by telephone

if he so chooses. 

DATED: July 25, 2005

Case 2:00-cv-01155-WBS -JFM Document 316 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 3