Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00617/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIGBY ADLER GROUP LLC, d/b/a

BANDAGO, a California limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

IMAGE RENT A CAR, INC., a New York

Corporation, and VAN RENTAL CO.,

INC., a New York Corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-10-617 SC

ORDER DENYING SECOND

MOTION TO DISMISS;

DENYING MOTION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

On March 12, 2010, the Court received a document from

Defendants Image Rent A Car, Inc. and Van Rental Company

("Defendants") that appears almost identical to the motion to

dismiss previously filed by Defendants on March 4, 2010. See

Docket Nos. 8, 10. The only difference between the two documents

is that the second contains the correct case number. To the

extent that the second document can be construed as another motion

to dismiss, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons stated in

the Court's March 9, 2010 Order. See Docket No. 9. 

On March 15, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Enlargement

of Time in Which To File Responsive Pleadings or Answer. Docket

No. 11. As explained in the Court's March 9, 2010 Order,

corporations may not appear in federal court pro se. For this

reason, the Court DENIES the Motion for Enlargement of Time.

Case 3:10-cv-00617-SC Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2
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-

Defendants are advised that they must retain corporate

counsel. Failure to do so may result in the Court entering

default judgment against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00617-SC Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2