Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04725/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04725-7/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04725-JSC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 83

Defendants move for an order requiring Plaintiff and its attorneys to show cause why they 

should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s attorney’s fees order. After 

carefully considering the papers submitted by Defendants, the Court concludes that oral argument 

is unnecessary, see Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and DENIES Defendants’ motion. Defendants have 

not offered any authority for their assertion that a party is required to pay attorney’s fees awarded 

in connection with a successful SLAPP motion before final judgment is entered.

DISCUSSION

This trademark infringement/fraud action arises out of a dispute involving the membership 

of Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens Inc. (“LULAC”). Plaintiff’s complaint 

included a claim for abuse of process. By Order filed September 11, 2014, the Court granted 

Defendants’ motion to strike the abuse of process claim pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, 

California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, but denied the motion the strike as to all other claims 

in the action, including the federal claims. (Dkt. No. 46.) In light of the mandatory fee provision 

in the SLAPP statute, the Court subsequently granted Defendants’ motion for fees incurred in 

connection with the abuse of process claim. (Dkt. No. 54.) 

Case 3:13-cv-04725-JSC Document 87 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants now seek an order to show cause why Plaintiff and its counsel should not be 

found in contempt for failure to comply with the attorney’s fees order; that is, for failure to 

actually pay Defendants the amount awarded. The fatal flaw in Defendants’ motion, however, is 

they do not cite a single authority that suggests that a party is required to pay an award of SLAPP 

fees before final judgment is entered and the party has had the opportunity to appeal. Defendants’ 

motion is therefore denied.

Defendants also seek an order to show cause why Plaintiff should not be found in contempt 

for failure to file its motion for leave for late filing of its amended complaint. The Court 

previously concluded that there was no basis for filing Plaintiff’s motion under seal and ordered 

Plaintiff to file an unredacted version by November 4, 2014. (Dkt. No. 54.) As of the date of this 

Order, Plaintiff has still not filed an unredacted version of the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff is 

ordered to file in the public docket an unredacted version of its motion for leave for late filing of 

its amended complaint by Monday, February 9, 2015. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will 

consider imposing sanctions, including vacating its order granting leave for late filing and 

therefore ordering dismissal of the case. Further Plaintiff is precluded from filing any further 

motions for leave to file a pleading under seal without first obtaining permission from the Court to 

do so. In other words, if it wishes to seek leave to file a pleading under seal, it must first file a 

public request with the court explaining why it will be seeking leave and the nature of the 

information it wishes to hide from public disclosure. And, no party may file any pleading ex 

parte, that is, without providing a copy of the pleading to the opposing side.

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a late reply to Defendants’ motion for 

an order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 83.) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the Court has not 

reviewed nor considered its late-file opposition. Its lament that Defendants’ motion was filed 

under seal and therefore it is unable to know what issues Defendants’ raised is untrue. The motion 

is on the public docket for all to see, including Plaintiff. 

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 74 and 83.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-04725-JSC Document 87 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04725-JSC Document 87 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 3