Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02423/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02423-3/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TMC Franchise Corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Millennium Vision, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-2423 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 On December 14, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the Langley Law Firm, P.C. 

motion to withdraw as counsel for defendants. Doc. 58. The Court ordered that 

Defendant Nastaran Eghtesad and a representative of Millennium Vision LLC appear at 

the hearing. Doc. 63. They did not appear. As a result, the Court set a show-cause 

hearing for January 18, 2012, that required Defendants to appear personally and show 

cause why default judgment should not be entered against them. The order specifically 

stated: “If defendant Nastaran Eghtesad and a representative of Millennium Vision LLC 

do not appear on January 18, 2012, the Court will enter default judgment against them.” 

Doc. 65 

The Court held the order to show cause hearing on January 18, 2012. New 

counsel for Defendants appeared, but Defendant Nastaran Eghtesad did not appear as 

ordered. The Court considered entering default judgment against Defendants, but 

concluded that such a result was not warranted given new counsel’s appearance in the 

case. The Court accordingly entered a revised litigation schedule. Doc. 68. 

Now, less than three weeks later, new counsel has moved to withdraw. Doc. 69. 

Case 2:10-cv-02423-DGC Document 70 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

No substitute counsel is identified. Although the motion suggests that Defendants are 

aware of the new schedule, the LLC Defendant cannot appear in this Court without legal 

counsel, D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th 

Cir.2004), and Defendant Nastaran Eghtesad has previously disregarded this Court’s 

orders to appear. Defendants have had three different attorneys in this case, and yet have 

succeeded only in delaying the resolution of this case. 

The Court will enter default judgment against Defendants. Defendants failed to 

appear on December 14 and January 18. Although new counsel appeared on January 18, 

that attorney has promptly withdrawn and no attorney has appeared. The Court deems 

this, effectively, as a non-appearance by Defendants on January 18, 2012. 

The Ninth Circuit has developed a five-part test to determine when case-ending 

sanctions are warranted: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the 

litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party 

seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co.,

158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 

Cir.1987)); see also Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999). 

Defendants have repeatedly violated Court orders to appear. “[W]here a court order is 

violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, 

so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 “involves 

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative 

sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the 

possibility of dismissal.” Id. The Court tried the alternative course of accepting new 

counsel yet again and setting a revised litigation schedule, but that course has again been 

frustrated by the withdrawal of counsel. The Court warned Defendants that failure to 

appear at the January 18 hearing would result in default judgment. Doc. 65. Because 

Defendant Nastaran Eghtesad has repeatedly disregarded this Court’s orders to appear 

and Defendant Millenium Vision LLC cannot appear without counsel, the Court 

Case 2:10-cv-02423-DGC Document 70 Filed 02/13/12 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

concludes that no lesser sanction than default judgment will suffice. Defendants’ 

disregard of this Court’s order and their frequent changes of counsel have made 

management of this litigation impossible. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 69) is granted.

2. The clerk is directed to enter default against Defendants and dismiss the 

counterclaims. Plaintiff may submit a motion for default judgment and 

proposed form of judgment requesting the specific amount of damages or 

injunctive relief sought, supported by appropriate documentation as 

required by this Court and Ninth Circuit law. 

Dated this 13th day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02423-DGC Document 70 Filed 02/13/12 Page 3 of 3