Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01293/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01293-5/pdf.json

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

CHINA INTL TRAVEL SERVICES (USA),

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHINA & ASIA TRAVEL SERVICE, INC.,

ET AL.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01293 JSW

ORDER

This matter is currently set for hearing on August 29, 2008, on Defendant China & Asia

Travel Service, Inc. d/b/a China International Travel Service (USA)’s motion to dismiss or in

the alternative for summary judgment. On June 23, 2008, this Court issued an order requiring

that an opposition brief be filed no later than July 7, 2008, and a reply brief be filed no later

than July 14, 2008. The Court has not received Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Also, on June 13, 2008, this Court approved a stipulation to substitute counsel for

Plaintiff China Intl Travel Services (USA). The stipulation indicated that new counsel, Andy

Yu, Plaintiff’s general manager, would substitute in for former counsel, Danning Jiang. 

On August 20, 2008, the Court received a notice indicating that Plaintiff had failed to

oppose the pending motion and indicating that Mr. Yu is not in fact an attorney. The Court

notes that “a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” See

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see also Civil Local Rule 3-

9(b). 

Case 3:08-cv-01293-JSW Document 27 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Plaintiff has an obligation to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in

the alternative, for summary judgment and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

case with prejudice. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure will, if granted, end Plaintiff’s case. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

54 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of

factually supported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In 

order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A

dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). In the absence of such facts, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 

law.” Celotex Corp., 477 at 323. In opposing summary judgment, Settle is not entitled to rely

on the allegations of his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); cf. S. A. Empresa de Viacao

Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. Walter Kidde & Co., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.

1982) (stating that “a party cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by

making assertions in its legal memoranda”). Rather, Settle’s response must set forth specific

facts supported by admissible evidence, i.e., affidavits or certified deposition testimony,

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275,

1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995),

and stating that it is not a district court’s task to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of

triable fact”). If summary judgment is granted, Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d at 953-54.

Plaintiff, a corporation, must be represented by counsel in order to proceed in this

matter. Therefore, the Court VACATES the hearing date of August 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for

Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. However, in order

to clarify the status of this matter, the Court will still conduct the case management conference

on August 29, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Andy Yu is HEREBY ORDERED to attend and must be

Case 3:08-cv-01293-JSW Document 27 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

prepared to address whether he is in fact counsel for Plaintiff and must demonstrate good cause

for his failure to oppose the pending motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01293-JSW Document 27 Filed 08/20/08 Page 3 of 3