Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01244/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Deja Vu, L.L.C. aka Vu Terrace Cafe, aka 

The Vu, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Hyatt Regency Corporation, a foreign 

corporation; Hyatt Regency Scottsdale 

Resort, Hyatt Corporation, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendants.

No. CV 11-01244-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint” 

(Doc. 27), Defendant’s “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.” 

(Doc. 28), and “Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing” 

(Doc. 30). All motions will be denied. 

Regarding Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was required to file a response 

by October 11, 2011, but filed nothing. Such failure to respond could be treated as 

conceding the motion. LRCiv 7.2(i). However, the substance of Defendant’s motion 

lacks merit at this stage of the case. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) 

plausibly alleges Plaintiff’s own use of the “The Vu” as a restaurant name, and the 

confusion and dilution caused by Defendant’s former use of “The Vu” as a restaurant 

name. Although Defendant has not operated a restaurant under the “Vu” name since 

2007, Plaintiff has alleged continuing confusion and loss of business caused by 

Case 2:11-cv-01244-NVW Document 32 Filed 10/26/11 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 

Defendant’s previous actions. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore plausibly provides 

sufficient notice of the basis for its causes of action under the Lanham Act and Arizona 

trademark and unfair competition law. Defendant’s arguments, by contrast, require an 

inquiry beyond the face of the pleadings and beyond the scope of judicially noticeable 

facts. Accordingly, Defendant’s arguments are not appropriate at this stage. For the 

same reason, Defendant’s Rule 11 motion — which largely relies on accusations that 

nothing Plaintiff says is true and Plaintiff knows it — will be denied. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s conduct is troubling. Plaintiff filed a materially identical 

lawsuit in 2007, over which Judge Voss presided. See Hake et al. v. VU Restaurant et 

al., No. CV07-0754-PHX-ECV (D. Ariz., filed Apr. 11, 2007). Regarding that lawsuit, 

Plaintiff now alleges that it was “overwhelmed by a most vigorous defense” and 

“conceded that the case . . . should be dismissed without prejudice to permit Plaintiff The 

‘Vu’ to take all action necessary to update its records for tax and other purposes prior to 

recommencing this case. [¶] Plaintiff The ‘Vu’ has [now] taken any and all action 

necessary to withstand the global defensive attack anticipated by Defendants.” (Doc. 26 

¶¶ 7–8.) 

Plaintiff’s assertions are not entirely forthcoming. In the previous case, Defendant 

filed a motion to compel discovery, and Plaintiff filed no response except a “Notice of 

Compliance and Service of Discovery Documents,” which (according to Judge Voss) 

“fail[ed] to address any of the specific issues identified in the motion to compel.” 

(CV07-0754, Doc. 38 at 1.) Defendant objected to the notice of compliance and again 

asked the Court to compel discovery. Plaintiff again filed no response. Judge Voss 

therefore granted Defendant’s motion and imposed sanctions, specifically, payment of 

Defendant’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion to compel. (Id. at 2.) By 

separate order, Judge Voss set that sanction at $4,270.04. (CV07-0754, Doc. 44.) 

Plaintiff did not comply with Judge Voss’s discovery order, nor his order to pay 

attorneys fees and costs. Defendant therefore moved to have the case dismissed as a 

sanction for ignoring discovery orders, and alternatively for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff 

Case 2:11-cv-01244-NVW Document 32 Filed 10/26/11 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 

again failed to reply to this motion, and Judge Voss dismissed the case in March 2009, 

but without prejudice. According to Defendant, Plaintiff still has not paid the $4,270.04 

ordered by Judge Voss. 

In the previous case, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motions at least 

three times. Plaintiff has begun to repeat such behavior here, having failed to respond to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The only motion which appears to have attracted 

Plaintiff’s attention is Defendant’s Rule 11 motion. But although Plaintiff has responded 

to that motion and has filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has still 

said nothing about Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff will not be allowed to continue to abuse the litigation process. If Plaintiff 

wishes to pursue this lawsuit, it must do so in good faith. Plaintiff claims that it has put 

its documentary house in order and “taken any and all action necessary to withstand the 

global defensive attack anticipated by Defendants.” (Doc. 26 ¶ 8.) Therefore, before any 

further proceedings in this case, Plaintiff must produce to Defendant the discovery 

compelled by Judge Voss. Plaintiff must also pay the discovery sanction ordered by 

Judge Voss. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. If 

Plaintiff required nearly three years to put its case together, Defendant is entitled to a 

reasonable amount of preliminary discovery in response. 

This order shall be deemed an order compelling discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37. Failure to comply will result in dismissal with prejudice as authorized by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss First 

Amended Complaint” (Doc. 27) and Defendant’s “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 

11, Fed.R.Civ.P.” (Doc. 28) are DENIED 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 

and Request for Hearing” (Doc. 30) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the 

motion following sufficient discovery. 

Case 2:11-cv-01244-NVW Document 32 Filed 10/26/11 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before November 30, 2011, Plaintiff 

shall: (i) comply with Judge Voss’s order compelling discovery (CV07-0754, Doc. 38) 

except that Heidi Hake need not yet submit to another deposition (see id. at 2:22–23); and 

(ii) file a statement with this Court certifying such compliance. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before November 16, 2011, Plaintiff 

shall: (i) comply with Judge Voss’s order requiring payment to Defendant of $4,270.04 

(CV07-0754, Doc. 44); and (ii) file a statement with this Court certifying such payment. 

Dated this 26th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01244-NVW Document 32 Filed 10/26/11 Page 4 of 4