Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01878/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01878-0/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

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Palace Investments, Inc., a Michigan

corporation; Michelle Bulinda, 

a Michigan resident, 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. 11-1878-PHX-PGR ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer. (Doc. 25.)

Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2011. (Doc. 15.) Defendants

filed their Answer on November 29, 2011. (Doc. 16.) On January 6, 2012, Defendants’

counsel filed an application to withdraw, which the court granted. (Docs. 20, 21.) The

Court ordered Defendants to obtain new counsel and file a notice of appearance by

February 13, 2012. (Doc. 21.) To date, no counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendant

Palace Investments, Inc., which, as a corporation, may appear in federal court only

through a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02

(1993). Defendants also failed to appear at the scheduling conference on February 27,

2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01878-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/12/12 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 -

Based on these circumstances, as well as Defendants’ failure to respond to

discovery requests, provide a disclosure statement, or participate in the case management

conference, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendants’ answer and enter default.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Palace Investments, Inc.

Default is a permissible sanction where a corporation fails to retain counsel. United States

v. High Country Broadcasting, Inc., 2 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); see Employee

Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). 

The Court will also grant the motion with respect to Defendant Michelle Bulinda

under Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has

considered the factors set forth in Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th

Cir. 2000), and concluded, in view of Defendant Bulima’s failure to comply with the

Court’s orders or otherwise participate in the litigation, that the public interest in the

expeditious resolution of this case and the court’s interest in managing its docket

outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits and that less drastic

alternatives are not available. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 25). The Clerk of the

Court shall strike Defendants’ Answer (Doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter default against

Defendants Palace Investments, Inc., and Michelle Bulinda.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01878-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2