Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04724/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04724-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CASE NO. C-05-04724 MMC)

SF/21660872.1

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 

JOHN D. PERNICK (SBN 155468) 

ANTHONY T. FALZONE (SBN 190845) 

RACHEL L. CHANIN (SBN 229253) 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 

Telephone: (415) 393-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 

WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & 

BRUCCULERI, LLP 

WILLIAM D. RAMAN 

221 W. Sixth Street, Suite 950 

Austin, TX 78701 

Phone: (512) 473-2550 

Facsimile: (512) 473-2555 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

GUARANTY BANK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

GUARANTY BANK, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

GUARANTY BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant.

No. C 05-04724 MMC 

SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Date: March 24, 2006 

Time: 10:30 a.m. 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Courtroom: 7 

Case 3:05-cv-04724-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 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

1

SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CASE NO. C-05-04724 MMC)

SF/21660872.1

Plaintiff, Guaranty Bank, submits this Separate Case Management Statement and 

Proposed Order:

1. A brief description of the events underlying this action: This is an action for 

trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended 

(the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.); for cancellation of a trademark registration under 

California Business and Professions Code § 14280 et seq.; and for unfair competition under 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. and California common law. Plaintiff 

Guaranty Bank alleges that Defendant Guaranty Bank of California is infringing Plaintiff’s 

trademark by opening new and additional branches outside of the Los Angeles area, and that 

Defendant’s recent advertising activities indicate its desire to further expand. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 

18- 23) Defendant has also improperly attempted to register the mark “GUARANTY BANK 

OF CALIFORNIA” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (that application is 

pending), and has registered that mark with the California Secretary of State. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 

24-26) Unless these actions are restrained, there will be customer confusion and Plaintiff will 

suffer irreparable harm. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27-36) 

2. Status of case: 

Guaranty Bank has been attempting to resolve this dispute informally and has delayed 

service during these informal talks. Guaranty Bank served Guaranty Bank of California with the 

complaint and other initiating documents on March 9, 2006. Because service was so recent, 

Guaranty Bank of California has not appeared in this action and the parties have not had time to 

discuss the issues that need to be discussed before submitting a complete Joint Case Management 

Statement. Guaranty Bank therefore requests that the Court to continue the case management 

conference for 60 days so that the parties may have time to discuss those issues. 

Case 3:05-cv-04724-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 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

2

SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CASE NO. C-05-04724 MMC)

SF/21660872.1

DATED: March 14, 2006 

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 

By: /S/ 

John D. Pernick 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

GUARANTY BANK 

Case 3:05-cv-04724-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 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

3

SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CASE NO. C-05-04724 MMC)

SF/21660872.1

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

 The Case Management Conference is continued 60 days to permit the parties to discuss 

the issues relevant to the case management conference. The new case management conference is 

scheduled for May ___, 2005 at ___.

DATED: March ___, 2006.

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

United States District Judge 

19 10:30 a.m. A joint case management statement shall be filed no

later than May 12, 2006. Plaintiff shall serve defendant with a copy of this order, and file proof of

such service, by March 24, 2006.

15

2006

Case 3:05-cv-04724-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 4