Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01559/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBIE’S COSTUME COMPANY, INC., 

a New York corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VANDUE CORPORATION, a 

California corporation; ERIC JACOBS, 

an individual; and KAROL JACOBS, an 

individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-1559-GPC-AGS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION

[DKT. NO. 20.]

On December 21, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of 

Permanent Injunction (“Joint Motion”). (Dkt. No. 20.) In the Joint Motion, the 

parties indicate they have “move the Court for entry of a permanent injunction, 

which was agreed to as part of a settlement of all claims in this case.” (Id.) In the 

proposed order, the parties set forth the terms of the proposed

“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise 

continuing jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 

96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “According to well established principles of 

equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test 

before a court may grant such relief.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 

Case 3:18-cv-01559-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Indeed, injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic 

remedy that is never awarded as of right.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 

976, 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Munaf v. Geren, 

553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). With the foregoing in mind, the Court is not 

prepared to enter a permanent injunction pursuant to the Joint Motion. The Joint 

Motion reveals the parties’ agreement to settle this action; it does not indicate that 

Defendants “will not abide by the agreed upon settlement, such that a permanent 

injunction and retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is required.” 

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki, No. 2:06cv2702-GEB(KJM), 2007 WL 214564, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice 

the parties’ Joint Motion. Should Plaintiff and Defendants wish to file a joint 

motion that demonstrates that the requirements for a permanent injunction are 

satisfied, the Court will permit them to do so on or before January 25, 2019. 

Should Plaintiffs and Defendants wish to proceed with execution and performance 

of their settlement agreement notwithstanding the Court’s denial of their request for 

a permanent injunction, the Court directs Plaintiffs and Defendants to file a joint 

motion for dismissal on or before January 25, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01559-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2