Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531-33/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRATERS & FREIGHTERS, a Colorado 

Corporation, and CRATERS & 

FREIGHTERS FRANCHISE COMPANY, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, a 

California Corporation, dba 

FREIGHT & CRATE; CATHY BENZ, an 

individual; and FRED BENZ, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-4531 CW 

ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND ORDER 

REGARDING PENDING 

MOTIONS 

(Docket Nos. 227, 

228 and 229) 

 Defendants Cathy Benz and Fred Benz move for leave to file a 

motion to reconsider this Court’s April 2015 order denying 

Defendants’ prior motion to reopen this case, to strike the 

original complaint and to dismiss with prejudice due to lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 227.1 Plaintiff Craters 

& Freighters seeks an order to show cause as to why Defendants 

should not be held in criminal contempt for violating the Court’s 

orders and permanent injunction. Docket No. 228. Defendants move 

to postpone all further proceedings pending their appeal of this 

Court’s April 2015 order. Docket No. 229. For the reasons below 

and in the Court’s prior orders, see Docket Nos. 214 & 223, the 

 1 This Court has issued a permanent injunction barring 

Defendants’ use of “Freight and Crate” and “the registered 

trademark ‘Craters & Freighters’ for any purpose whatsoever.” See 

Docket No. 104 at 1-2. Among other rulings, this Court has also 

granted Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions against 

Defendants. See Docket No. 226 at 1. 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion to 

reconsider (Docket No. 227), and DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay 

proceedings (Docket No. 229). With regard to Plaintiff’s motion 

for an order to show cause (Docket No. 228), Defendants shall file 

an opposition within seven days of the date of this Order, and any 

reply shall be due one week thereafter. 

I. Defendants’ Motions 

 The Court construes Defendants’ motion for reconsideration as 

one asking the Court to entertain the motion after Defendants 

filed their amended notice of appeal.2 The Court DENIES the 

motion. “Once an appeal is filed, the district court no longer 

has jurisdiction to consider motions to vacate judgment.” Davis 

v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007). “However, a 

district court may entertain and decide a Rule 60(b) motion after 

notice of appeal is filed if the movant follows a certain 

procedure, which is to ‘ask the district court whether it wishes 

to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move [the court 

of appeals], if appropriate, for remand of the case.’” Id. 

(citations omitted)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 (“If a timely 

motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant 

 2 This Court entered a permanent injunction against 

Defendants in May 2010 (Docket No. 104) and denied Defendants’ 

motion to reopen this case, strike the original complaint and 

dismiss the case in April 2015 (Docket No. 214). On April 29, 

2015, Defendants filed an amended notice of appeal of the Court’s 

April 2015 order (Docket No. 217). That appeal is pending. See 

No. 14-17497 (9th Cir. filed April 29, 2015). Defendants filed 

their motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider this Court’s 

April 2015 order in August 2015 (Docket No. 227). 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the 

court may . . . 2) deny the motion . . . .”). 

 Defendants argue that, in its April 2015 order denying 

Defendants’ prior motion to reopen this case, to strike the 

original complaint and to dismiss the case, the Court referred to 

“the name in the caption of the complaint []as ‘Craters and 

Freighters,’” and erred because “in actuality the name in the 

caption of the complaint was ‘Craters & Freighters, a Colorado 

Corporation.’” Docket No. 227 at 2; see also id. at 1 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and seeking “leave to . . . to move [the 

Court] to reconsider its last decision”). The Court deemed 

“CRATERS & FREIGHTERS” to be the name in the caption of the 

complaint when noting “that the name in the caption of the 

complaint, ‘Craters & Freighters,’ does not contain any of the 

words or abbreviations required by Colorado statute to incorporate 

an entity”—“the term or abbreviation ‘corporation,’ 

‘incorporated,’ ‘company,’ ‘limited,’ corp.,’ ‘inc.,’ ‘co.’ or 

‘ltd.’” Docket No. 214 at 6; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 7-90-

601(3)(a). 

 Defendants offer no new cognizable reason to warrant relief 

from the Court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)-(c); Docket 

No. 214 at 4-5 (denying as untimely Defendants’ motion to reopen 

the case, strike the original complaint and dismiss the case with 

prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction); id. at 9 

(denying Defendants’ motion and ordering “Craters & Freighters 

Franchise Company” to ratify, join or be substituted as the real 

party-in-interest); Docket No. 223 at 3 (denying Defendants’ 

subject matter jurisdiction objections to the Court’s April 2015 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

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 

order). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion (Docket 

No. 227). 

 Second, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to “postpone all 

further proceedings” pending appeal. “A stay is not a matter of 

right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken 

v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Instead, it is “an exercise of judicial 

discretion,” and “the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the 

circumstances of the particular case.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotation and alteration marks omitted). The party seeking a stay 

bears the burden of justifying the exercise of that discretion. 

Id. at 433-34. 

 “A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of equities tip[s] 

in his favor, and that a stay is in the public interest.” Humane 

Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009); see 

also Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 702 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1135 (N.D. 

Cal. 2010).3 The first two factors of this standard “are the most 

critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Once these factors are 

satisfied, courts then assess “the harm to the opposing party” and 

weigh the public interest. Id. at 435. 

 3 An alternative to this standard is the “substantial 

questions” test. Under this test, “serious questions going to the 

merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the 

plaintiff” can support the issuance of a stay, “so long as the 

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable 

injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” See 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 5 

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 

 Defendants fail to justify a stay. To the extent Defendants 

continue to rely on their subject matter jurisdiction argument as 

in their motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, 

the Court addresses that argument, and its lack of merit, above. 

Further, Defendants cite “the interest of Judicial Economy” in 

their motion, Docket No. 229 at 2, but do not claim that absent a 

stay they will suffer irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Defendants’ motion to postpone further proceedings. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion 

 Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated this Court’s 

orders “[s]ince . . . May 22, 2015” by filing a Statement of 

Reservation of Name “Craters & Freighters, a Colorado Corporation” 

with the Colorado Secretary of State in August 2015 in violation 

of the permanent injunction in this case (Docket No. 104), and by 

failing to file a financial affidavit or to pay in full the amount 

due in accordance with this Court’s June 2015 order (Docket No. 

226). Docket No. 228 at 2. 

 In addition to the Court’s order related to the payment of 

sanctions imposed or the filing of a financial affidavit regarding 

ability to pay, the Court ordered: 

(1) On or before May 28, 2015, Defendants shall file 

with the Colorado Secretary of State the necessary 

paperwork to request the dissolution of the business 

named “Craters & Freighters, Inc.” 

(2) On or before May 28, 2015, Defendants shall modify 

their filing before the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office to make clear that the filing is being 

made on behalf of Cathy Benz and Fred Benz, and not on 

behalf of “Freight & Crate.” 

(3) Defendants shall provide Plaintiff’s counsel and the 

Court with proof of their compliance with items (1) and 

(2). If Defendants fail to comply with item (1) or (2), 

the Court will impose monetary sanctions in the amount 

of $1,000 per day beginning on May 28, 2015, until 

compliance is shown. 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 6 

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 

See Docket No. 223 at 1-2. In their further briefing, the parties 

shall address Defendants’ compliance with these terms. 

 Defendants are ordered to show cause in writing and at a 

hearing why they should not be held in civil or criminal contempt, 

or both. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion (Docket No. 228) within seven days of the date of this 

Order, and any reply shall be due one week thereafter. 

Defendants’ opposition shall address why they should not be 

incarcerated until they file a financial affidavit as ordered by 

this Court on May 22, 2015 (Docket No. 223) and June 11, 2015 

(Docket No. 226). A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion will be held 

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. 

 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of 

criminal penalties does not comply with this Court’s prior 

instructions. See Docket No. 214. The Court required that 

Plaintiff file two proposed orders, one “that gives notice to 

Defendants and states the ‘essential facts constituting the 

charged criminal contempt and describe it as such,’” and one 

“appointing the United States Attorney for this district as a 

special prosecutor.” Id. at 13 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 42). 

Plaintiff must also “include a brief specifying the due process 

protections that must be provided, such as the maximum sentence, 

the right to a jury trial and the right to appointed counsel.” 

Id. Plaintiff has filed one proposed order with this motion, but 

not a proposed order appointing the United States Attorney for 

this district as a special prosecutor. See Docket No. 228-2. If 

it wishes to pursue a criminal contempt remedy, it must file such 

a proposed order as directed. 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 7 

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 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 

motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider this Court’s April 

2015 order (Docket No. 227) and their motion to stay proceedings 

(Docket No. 229). Defendants shall file an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 228) within seven days of the date 

of this Order, and any reply shall be due one week thereafter. A 

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion will be held Tuesday, January 12, 

2016 at 2:30 p.m. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 30, 2015 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 230 Filed 11/30/15 Page 7 of 7