Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02425/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02425-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PepsiCo, Inc., a North Carolina

corporation; and The Concentrate

Manufacturing Company of Ireland, also

trading as Seven-Up International, a

corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Los Potros Distribution Center, LLC, a

limited liability company; and Santos

Hernandez, an individual, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2425-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. #22. No response

has been filed. The Court will grant the motion and award Plaintiffs $38,367.20.

I. Background.

PepsiCo, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, The Concentrate Manufacturing

Company of Ireland, commenced this action on November 30, 2007, by filing a complaint

against Los Potros Distribution Center, LLC and Santos Hernandez, the alleged owner of Los

Potros. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made unauthorized sales within the United States

of soft drinks manufactured in Mexico and bearing Plaintiffs’ PEPSI and MANANITA SOL

trademarks. Plaintiffs further allege that the unauthorized sales of the Mexican soft drinks

violated the terms of a settlement agreement between PepsiCo and Hernandez in PepsiCo,

Case 2:07-cv-02425-DGC Document 29 Filed 05/29/08 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 -

Inc. v. Loza, CV-06-607-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2006). The complaint asserts claims

for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract. Dkt. #1.

Defendants were served with process on December 11, 2007. Dkt. ##8-9. Defendants

have not responded to the complaint or otherwise defended this action. The Clerk entered

Defendants’ default, Dkt. #11, and the Court granted default judgment against Defendants

pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. #20.

II. Discussion.

The Court concluded in its default judgment order that Plaintiffs are entitled to an

award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. #20 at 5. Plaintiffs request an award of

$38,367.20. Dkt. #24 at 2. Pursuant to Rule 54.2 of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiffs have filed a supporting memorandum, a statement of consultation, a

task-based itemized statement of fees and expenses, and attorney declarations. Dkt. ##24,

24-2, 24-3, 28, 28-2.

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting documents, and having considered

the factors set forth in Local Rule 54.2(c)(3), the Court finds that the amount of the requested

award is reasonable. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Ortiz Mexi-Prods., Inc., No. 97 C 7082, 2000 WL

198843, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2000) (finding reasonable an award of $37,344.60). The

Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion and award them $38,367.20 in attorney’s fees and costs.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs (Dkt. #22) is

granted.

2. Plaintiffs are awarded $38,367.20 in attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs.

DATED this 29th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02425-DGC Document 29 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2