Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01804/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01804-2/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

Prestige Administration, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

US Fidelis, Inc., a Missouri corporation;

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-1804-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On September 30, 2010, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file, by

October 15, a dismissal or a memorandum why this action should not be dismissed in light

of Plaintiff’s most recent status report (Doc. 98). Doc. 99. Plaintiff has not complied. For

the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s action is dismissed as moot.

According to Plaintiff’s most recent status report filed on September 21, 2010,

Plaintiff has entered into a voluntary order that, inter alia, enjoins Plaintiff from litigating

against US Fidelis, Inc., Crescent Manufacturing Company, LLC, and Darrain and Mia

Atkinson. Doc. 98. The order was approved by the bankruptcy judge presiding over the

adverse proceedings against US Fidelis, Inc. in the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District

of Missouri. Id. at 4-7. Furthermore, this Court has earlier dismissed Plaintiff’s claims

against Mepco Finance Corporation with leave to amend (Doc. 87), and Plaintiff has not filed

an amendment. Moreover, Plaintiff indicated in its last status report that this Court had

dismissed the claims against Mepco, implying that it will not seek leave to amend.

See Doc. 98.

Case 2:09-cv-01804-DGC Document 100 Filed 10/25/10 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 -

A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12 if the action is moot. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In this case, Plaintiff admits that

it entered into a voluntary order to not litigate against the only remaining defendants in this

case. Doc. 98. This voluntary order has mooted the present controversy between the

remaining parties. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed as moot. See Bernhardt v.

County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court shall dismiss this action.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01804-DGC Document 100 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 2