Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00333/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00333-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 

DLC Dermacare, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sixta Castillo, RN, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-0333 -PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against 

Defendants Sixta Castillo, R.N., and Juan Castillo-Plaza, M.D. Doc. 189. Pro se 

Defendants have filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv. 

56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). On September 26, 2011, the Court ordered pro se 

Defendants to file a response no later than October 7, 2011. Doc. 197. Defendants have 

not complied.1

 

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: 

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported 

as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon 

the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s 

pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If 

the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. 

 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.”

Case 2:10-cv-00333-DGC Document 205 Filed 10/31/11 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 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-

23 (1986) (holding that summary judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to 

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s 

case”); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 

(“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do 

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). 

 Plaintiff’s arguments as to breach of contract and Defendants’ failure to show a 

material factual dispute are persuasive in the absence of Defendants’ opposition. 

Plaintiff’s other arguments are also colorable. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment because the undisputed evidence offered in support of the motion 

“show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [Defendants are] 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

322-23. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Sixta Castillo, 

R.N. and Juan Castillo-Plaza, M.D. (Doc. 189) is granted. 

Dated this 31st day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-00333-DGC Document 205 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 2