Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_23-cv-00251/USCOURTS-ared-3_23-cv-00251-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00251 KGB

AT HOME HELPERS LLC, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court are defendants AT Home Helpers LLC, Amanda Derrick, and Terra 

Boykin’s motion to extend time (Dkt. No. 7), defendants’ motion for leave to file amended answer 

(Dkt. No. 17), and plaintiff H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc.’s (“H.H. Franchising”) motion for 

leave to file reply in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 20). The 

Court will address each in turn. 

First, the Court addresses defendants’ motion to extend time (Dkt. No. 7). H.H. 

Franchising filed its complaint on December 15, 2023 (Dkt. No. 1). The record indicates that 

defendants were served on December 18, 2023 (Dkt. Nos. 3–5). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12 requires a defendant to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint within 21 days of service 

unless service has been waived under Rule 4(d). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Therefore, 

defendants were required to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by January 8, 

2024.

On January 12, 2024, defendants filed their motion to extend time because they could not 

find representation (Dkt. No. 7). On January 17, 2024, the Court on its own motion stayed the 

matter for 30 days to allow defendants to find representation (Dkt. No. 8). Defendants found 

representation and submitted an answer to the complaint on January 26, 2024 (Dkt. Nos. 9; 11). 

H.H. Franchising has not made a filing in opposition the motion to extend time, and the time to do 

Case 3:23-cv-00251-KGB Document 22 Filed 07/25/24 Page 1 of 3
2

so has passed. For good cause shown, the Court grants the motion to extend (Dkt. No. 7), and the 

Court considers defendants’ answer as timely filed. 

Second, the Court addresses defendants’ motion for leave to file amended answer (Dkt. 

No. 17). Defendants filed their motion for leave to file amended answer on April 2, 2024 (Id.). 

Defendants state that they seek to add a “fair use” defense (Id., ¶ 2). Defendants also state that 

“Plaintiff intends on withdrawing the affirmative defense of fraud” (Id., ¶ 3). The Court

understands this to mean that defendants will withdraw their affirmative defense of fraud, as the 

proffered amended answer does not include the fraud defense that appears in defendants’ original 

answer (Dkt. Nos. 9, ¶ 60; 17-1). H.H. Franchising has not made a filing in opposition to this 

motion, and the time to do so has passed. The Court notes that H.H. Franchising states in its 

motion for leave to file a reply in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary junction that it seeks 

to address the “fair use” defense that defendants wish to add in their amended answer (Dkt. No. 

20, ¶¶ 3–6). For these reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion for leave to file amended 

answer (Dkt. No. 17). Defendants have seven days from the entry of this Order to file their 

amended answer. 

Third, the Court addresses H.H. Franchising’s motion for leave to file reply in support of 

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 20). H.H. Franchising asserts that its reply 

will address defendants’ “fair use” defense, clarify the controlling law and evidence of “secondary 

meaning” under the Lanham Act, address companies that defendants claim have similar marks to 

H.H. Franchising, and address defendants’ argument regarding security for an injunction required 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), among other things (Dkt. No. 20, ¶¶ 6–7). Defendants 

have not made a filing in opposition to this motion, and the time to do so has passed. For good 

cause shown, the Court grants the motion for leave to file reply in support of plaintiff’s motion for 

Case 3:23-cv-00251-KGB Document 22 Filed 07/25/24 Page 2 of 3
3

preliminary injunction (Id.). H.H. Franchising has seven days from the entry of this Order to file 

its reply. The Court will not permit further briefing on this matter absent good cause shown. 

It is so ordered this 25th day of July, 2024.

________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:23-cv-00251-KGB Document 22 Filed 07/25/24 Page 3 of 3