Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00707-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONOR PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CO.

LTD and P&P INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LOLLICUP USA, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-0707 AWI DLB

ORDER RE: EX PARTE REQUEST

FOR CONTINUANCE ON

HEARING

On September 6, 2006, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against Defendant

with a hearing set for October 10, 2006. Under Local Rule 78-230(c), Opposition, if any, to the

granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Clerk not less than fourteen

(14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date.” That is, opposition was due on

September 26, 2006. No opposition was received, and the court received no contact from

Defendant. On September 29, 2006, Defendant instead filed an ex parte motion for continuance

of the hearing stating that Alan Yu, President of Lollicup, had been out of the country

approximately September 15-25, 2006. The motion did not explain why a motion for

continuance was not made earlier. In response, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the continuance,

citing numerous alleged instances where Defendant has missed deadlines in this litigation. 

Plaintiffs also requested a temporary restraining order in lieu of the preliminary injunction if the

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 47 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

court decided to postpone the hearing. 

In this matter, it appears Defendant has been dilatory. Nevertheless, a preliminary

injunction is not lightly granted. The court would benefit from Defendant’s presentation of

evidence and argument concerning this matter. As a compromise, the hearing on Tuesday,

October 10, 2006 will be for a temporary restraining order pending a preliminary injunction

hearing only. A hearing date and briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction will be set at

that hearing. Normally, a Defendant who has not filed a timely written opposition is not entitled

to be heard at oral argument. Local Rule 78-230(c). In this instance, Defendant will be allowed

to verbally argue the law at the hearing should it choose to, but may not present evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 47 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 2