Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05785/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05785-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed January 12, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

RE/MAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SOMRAJ SINGH, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C08-05785 JW (HRL) 

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND (2) 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

[Re: Docket No. 44] 

In December 2008, plaintiff RE/MAX International, Inc. (“RE/MAX”) filed suit seeking a 

de novo review of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision concerning its 

opposition to pro se defendant Somraj Singh’s application to register the mark “Savemax Realty.” 

The TTAB found that there was no likelihood of confusion and dismissed RE/MAX’s opposition. 

RE/MAX now moves to compel Singh to respond to discovery requests and appear for deposition, 

and within the same motion, requests attorney’s fees.1

 Singh did not oppose the merits of 

RE/MAX’s motion2 but did appear at the motion hearing. Upon consideration of the moving and 

 

1

 Plaintiff did not bring its request for sanctions separately as required by this court’s Local Rules. 

See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-8, 37-3. Nonetheless, because Singh did not object to plaintiff’s request on 

this ground, the court will consider the request. 

2

 Singh filed a “stipulation” one week before the hearing date asking “that the court to [sic] extend 

three months time.” (Docket No. 47.) Plaintiff opposes any continuance and notes that it did not 

stipulate to any extension of time. (Docket No. 48.) The court finds good cause lacking for a 

continuance of this motion to compel, and accordingly, denies Singh’s request as it pertains to this 

motion only. Singh must make any request to stay this case as a whole to Judge Ware as the 

presiding judge. 

Case 5:08-cv-05785-JW Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

responding papers, as well as the arguments presented at the hearing, this court grants plaintiff’s 

motion to compel but denies its request for attorney’s fees. 

DISCUSSION 

On July 27, 2009, RE/MAX served defendant, who was represented by counsel at the time, 

with one interrogatory and one request for production that sought updated responses to discovery it 

had served during the TTAB proceeding. However, two days later, Singh’s counsel was allowed to 

withdraw and a sixty-day stay went into effect to give Singh time to find new counsel or indicate 

intent to proceed pro se. He did neither. On November 11, plaintiff re-served Singh directly with 

the discovery requests at issue, along with a request to schedule his deposition. 

To date, Singh has failed to respond to these requests or agree to a date for deposition, 

despite plaintiff’s many attempts to meet and confer. Instead, Singh has sought several delays in 

this case and has put off plaintiff’s requests for discovery because, he says, he has been in India for 

much of 2009 and has not had the opportunity to secure legal counsel. He now argues that he needs 

yet more time to find an attorney and that a delay also is appropriate because he alleges improper 

service of the original complaint.3

 

A review of the discovery requests at issue in this motion indicates that they are relevant and 

appropriate under the circumstances of this case. See Redken Labs., Inc. v. Clairol, Inc., 501 F.2d 

1403, 1404 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that “parties may introduce additional evidence relevant to 

issues raised before the [TTAB]” for a challenge pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1701(b)); see also Wells 

Fargo & Co. v. Stagecoach Props., Inc., 685 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir.1982). Plaintiff also has a right 

to take Singh’s oral deposition as a party to this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. 

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Singh’s responses to plaintiff’s discovery 

requests were due within thirty days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Taking into account the 

sixty-day stay, Singh should have responded by October 29, 2009. Even if Singh were not aware of 

the discovery at issue until plaintiff re-served him on November 11, the deadline for responding has 

passed. In addition, Singh has failed to show good cause as to why he should not be deposed. 

 

3

 Although Singh has repeatedly argued that could not find counsel because he was in India, he 

admitted at the motion hearing that he has been in the United States since the first week of 

December. Furthermore, any challenge that Singh may have as to improper service of plaintiff’s 

complaint is one he should present before Judge Ware. 

Case 5:08-cv-05785-JW Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant shall 

provide complete responses by January 22, 2010 and meet and confer in good faith with plaintiff to 

set a date for his deposition, to be held by February 12, 2010. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees 

as part of this motion is DENIED.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

4

 Singh is warned that failure to comply with court orders or its procedural rules, to include refusal 

to participate in good faith in the discovery process, may subject him to sanctions, including an 

award of reasonable attorney’s fees to plaintiff and a striking of his answer to the complaint. 

Defendant should either obtain counsel now or diligently take up the defense in this action himself. 

He cannot continue to ignore it without adverse consequences. 

Case 5:08-cv-05785-JW Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C 08-05785 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

E. Patrick Ellisen ellisenp@gtlaw.com, AltamiranoT@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com 

Srecko Vidmar vidmarl@gtlaw.com, bradshawm@gtlaw.com, collinsk@gtlaw.com, 

 lovelandk@gtlaw.com, westp@gtlaw.com 

Notice will be sent by other means to:

Somraj Singh 

4661 Alhambra Drive 

Fremont, CA 94536 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:08-cv-05785-JW Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 4