Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554-5/pdf.json

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

SONOMA FOODS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SONOMA CHEESE FACTORY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 /

No. C 07-00554 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 15, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the special motion

to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 filed by plaintiff and counterCase 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 43 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

defendant Sonoma Foods, Inc.’s (“Sonoma Foods”) and tentatively GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Sonoma Foods’ motion to dismiss the counter-claims filed by defendant

and counter-claimants Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC (“Sonoma Cheese Factory”) and counter

claimant L. Peter Viviani (collectively, (“Counter-claimaints”).

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Breach of Contract Counterclaim:

(a) Do Counter-claimaints contend that the contract at issue is written or oral? 

(b) Who specifically are the parties to the alleged agreement? 

(c) By what date under the alleged agreement do Counter-claimaints allege Sonoma

Foods was obliged to transfer the trademarks at issue?

(d) When did the first alleged breach occur?

(e) Counter-claimaints argue in their opposition brief that between 2001 and 2005,

Sonoma Foods and David Viviani acted as if the agreement had been respected. 

However, on August 20, 2002, Sonoma Foods registered Sonoma Blue (Reg. No.

2610926), one of the marks Counter-claimaints allege is associated with Sonoma

Cheese Factory’s retail operations. Why is the registration of Sonoma Blue

almost eight months after the alleged agreement was made not inconsistent with

the agreement to transfer the retail trademarks to Sonoma Cheese Factory?

(f) Where a plaintiff relies on the discovery rule, the plaintiff “must specifically

plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to

have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” Fox v. Ethicon EndoSurgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 808 (2005), citing McKelvey v. Boeing North

American, Inc., 74 Cal. App. 4th 151, 160 (1999) (emphasis in original). Where

in the Counter-complaint are such facts alleged?

(2) On what authority, if any, do Counter-claimaints rely to demonstrate that Sonoma Foods

owed a fiduciary duty to Peter Viviani, its former majority shareholder, or to Sonoma

Cheese Factory, an independent company?

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 43 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(3) To state a claim for constructive fraud under California law, Counter-claimaints must

allege a fiduciary or confidential relationship. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 460 F.

Supp. 2d 1177, 1183 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Given that David Viviani is not named as a

party, with whom do Counter-claimaints allege that they had a fiduciary or confidential

relationship?

(4) To state a claim under 15 U.S.C § 1125(a)(1), Counter-claimaints must allege: (1) the

existence of a valid, protectable mark used in connection with the sale of goods or

services; and (2) Sonoma Foods’ use of a mark that is confusingly similar. See

Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036,

1046 (9th Cir.1999). Where do Counter-claimaints allege such facts?

(5) Counter-claimaints argue that Sonoma Foods’ obtainment of additional retail trademarks

violates 15 U.S.C § 1125(a). (Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 9.) Is Sonoma Foods’

registration of Sonoma Blue (Reg. No. 2610926) as alleged in paragraph 12 of the

Counter-complaint one of the additional retail trademarks Counter-claimaints allege

Sonoma Foods obtained?

(6) Given that Counter-claimaints allege that Sonoma Foods failed to transfer retail

trademarks to Sonoma Cheese Factory, as a company, on what basis do

Counterclaimaints bring their claim for financial elder abuse against Peter Viviani, as an

individual?

(7) Counter-claimaints allege that they learned that “numerous trademarks were not

transferred by [Sonoma Foods] to Cheese Factory.” (Countercompl., ¶ 13.) 

(a) Do Counter-claimaints contend that Sonoma Foods failed to transfer some or all

of the agreed-upon trademarks? 

(b) If Counter-claimaints allege they received some but not all of the agreed-upon

trademarks, based on what authority do they rely to demonstrate that such facts

state a claim for rescission based on failure of consideration?

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 43 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(8) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: June 14, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 43 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 4