Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04131/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04131-5/pdf.json

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

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AAA AUTO BODY & REPAIR, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C14-04131 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has received Plaintiff American Automobile Association Inc’s Motion to

Enforce the Court’s Contempt Order Against Defendants AAA Auto Body & Repair, Inc. 

Mot. (dkt. 46). That Motion notes that the Court’s June 25, 2015 Contempt Order: (1) held

Defendants in contempt for their continued violation of the Court’s Order of February 27,

2015 (dkt. 36); (2) enjoined Defendants from using, without authorization, any of Plaintiff’s

trademarks, and required Defendants to file a compliance statement within 30 days; (3)

required Defendants to pay Plaintiff an additional $5,416.09 in costs; and (4) provided that if

Defendants did not comply, then Plaintiff could seek further assistance from the Court,

“including imposition of additional monetary sanctions or a civil arrest warrant for Mr.

Takhar.” Id. at 3 (citing Order Holding Defendants AAA Auto Body & Repair, Inc. and

Sarbjeet Takhar in Contempt of Court (dkt. 44) at 2). The Motion asserts that no action has

been taken in response to the Court’s June 25, 2015 Order: Defendants have not paid 

Case 3:14-cv-04131-CRB Document 49 Filed 08/11/15 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

Plaintiff anything, have not submitted a statement of compliance to the Court, and continue

to use Plaintiff’s marks. Id. at 3-4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to SHOW

CAUSE by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 2015 why the Court should not grant

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce. Failure to timely respond to this Order could result in the

issuance of a civil arrest warrant as to Defendant Takhar, among other remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-04131-CRB Document 49 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2