Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03652/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 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

1

The first two documents were e-filed January 27, 2006. To date, no chambers

copies have been lodged. See General Order 45 § VI.G (providing party must deliver to

Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day following the day that the papers are

filed electronically, one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically . . . marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number, and

‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File’”). Further, although this is an e-filing case, the letter was not

e-filed by counsel but rather mailed to the Court, who has directed the Clerk to scan the

document into the docket; any request for a telephonic appearance should be properly

filed. See Civil L. R. 16-10. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNBEAM MARKET, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3652 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE REQUEST

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT; DENYING

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AS MOOT

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Lorillard Tobacco Company’s separate Case

Management Statement, Declaration of Thomas A. Burg, and letter request for a telephonic

appearance.1

Given plaintiff’s representation, as set forth in the above documents, that neither

defendant has appeared, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED to

March 24, 2006; a Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than March 17,

2006. Plaintiff is hereby directed to file, no later than February 24, 2006, either a request

Case 3:05-cv-03652-MMC Document 33 Filed 01/30/06 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

for entry of default or a declaration explaining why such request is not warranted.

The request for a telephonic appearance is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03652-MMC Document 33 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2