Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531-36/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 

CRATERS & FREIGHTERS, a Colorado 

Corporation, and CRATERS & 

FREIGHTERS FRANCHISE COMPANY, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, a 

California Corporation, dba 

FREIGHT & CRATE; CATHY BENZ, an 

individual; and FRED BENZ, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-4531 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL 

CONTEMPT HOLDING 

(Docket Nos. 228 

and 240) 

 Plaintiff Craters & Freighters moves for an order to show 

cause as to why Defendants Cathy Benz and Fred Benz should not be 

held in criminal contempt. Plaintiff also moves for the 

appointment of a prosecutor to seek the imposition of criminal 

penalties for willful violations of the Court’s orders. Docket 

No. 228. On November 30, 2015, the Court ordered that Defendants 

show cause in writing and at a hearing why they should not be held 

in civil or criminal contempt, or both. Subsequently, Defendant 

Fred Benz filed an Application for an Order to Show Cause Why 

[Plaintiff’s attorney] John P. Schmitz Should Not Be Held in 

Contempt of Court and Prosecuted for False Filing, 

Misrepresentation, Trespass, Theft, Identity Theft and Money 

Laundering. Docket No. 240. Fred Benz and Cathy Benz each later 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 250 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

filed a financial affidavit.1 The Court held a hearing on 

Tuesday, January 12, 2016. Having considered arguments at the 

hearing, the parties’ filings and the record in this case, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a prosecutor for the 

alleged criminal contempt, declines to sanction Defendants based 

on this motion and DENIES Defendants’ application for an order to 

show cause. 

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well 

settled: ‘The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that the [non-moving party] violated a 

specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts 

to the [non-moving party] to demonstrate why they were unable to 

comply.’” FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 968 

F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated the Court’s 

permanent injunction and prior orders by (1) failing to file 

financial affidavits; (2) failing to pay amounts due; (3) paying 

only eighteen of twenty-eight required weekly payments of ten 

dollars per week (as of December 10, 2015); (4) directing their 

sons to file, in August 2015, a Statement of Reservation of Name 

for “Craters & Freighters, a Colorado Corporation;” and 

(5) directing one of their sons to transfer a Statement of 

Reservation of Name for “Craters & Freighters, a Colorado 

 1 One affidavit is signed “Kathy Benz,” but other filings 

with the Court list “Cathy Benz.” The Court uses the spelling 

that appears in Defendants’ prior motion for leave to file a 

motion to reconsider. See Docket No. 227. 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 250 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Corporation” to a “Steve Barnard,” who then filed Articles of 

Incorporation for the entity—actions Plaintiff characterizes as a 

“straw man transaction to reincorporate Freighters & Craters, a 

Colorado Corporation.” Docket No. 233 at 2.2

 The Court declines to find Defendants in civil contempt for 

failure to file a financial affidavit, as ordered by this Court on 

May 22, 2015 and June 11, 2015. Fred Benz and Cathy Benz now have 

filed financial affidavits with the Court. 

 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a prosecutor 

to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. The permanent 

injunction prohibits the use of “Freight & Crate” and the use of 

“the registered trademark ‘Craters & Freighters’ for any purpose 

whatsoever.” Docket No. 104. Although Plaintiff submits filings 

with the Colorado Secretary of State that include the names Tyler 

Frederick Benz and Alexander Richard Benz, Plaintiff has not 

submitted evidence that Defendants Cathy Benz and Fred Benz are 

associated with those filings. Defendants have indicated that 

they are unable to pay amounts previously ordered, and Plaintiff 

has not produced evidence that Defendants are able to pay or that 

they are evading the execution of the judgment. As the Court 

indicated at the hearing, it will order a settlement conference 

regarding outstanding amounts due to Plaintiff, if the parties so 

 2 Plaintiff indicates that Defendants have obeyed the Court’s 

orders to “dissolve ‘Craters & Freighters, a Colorado Corporation’ 

with the Secretary of State of Colorado,” Docket No. 232 at 3 n.1, 

and to ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office to 

“remove Freight & Crate from the company line,” id. at 3. 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 250 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

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 

request. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants are using the 

infringing marks in advertising. 

 The Court reiterates that violations of the Court’s orders, 

including the permanent injunction, may lead to contempt sanctions 

that may include incarceration until compliance is obtained. See 

Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). The 

Court does not condone Fred Benz’s and Cathy Benz’s delay in 

filing their financial affidavits, and notes that their affidavits 

lack detail. Plaintiff may continue to pursue its civil remedies 

to execute the judgment. The Court’s primary concern is 

preventing Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s trademarks in violation 

of the permanent injunction. 

 Separately, the Court denies Fred Benz’s application for an 

order to show cause. The Court reiterates that it has rejected 

Defendants’ subject matter jurisdiction arguments. See Docket 

Nos. 214, 222. Defendants present no evidence that Plaintiff’s 

attorney has violated an order of this Court. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

request for the appointment of a prosecutor to seek the imposition 

of criminal penalties for willful violations of the Court’s orders 

(Docket No. 228), declines to hold Defendants in civil contempt 

and DENIES Defendants’ application for an order to show cause 

(Docket No. 240). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 2, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 250 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 4