Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01174-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AARON SIMON WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01174-AWI-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ECF NO. 28

On January 8, 2014 the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that Plaintiffs Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint 

Communications Company, L.P.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for default judgment be partially 

granted. (ECF No. 28.) The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On January 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 29.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case.

Plaintiffs object to the portions of the Findings and Recommendations recommending 

that Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction be denied. The magistrate judge recommended 

that the request for a permanent injunction be denied because Plaintiffs did not introduce any 

evidence in support their request and because the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint were not 

Case 1:13-cv-01174-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 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

2

sufficient to demonstrate that the injunctive relief requested was appropriate. Further, the 

magistrate judge found that the requested injunctive relief was overbroad because it was not 

tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged.

Plaintiffs argue that they need not “prove up” their entitlement to injunctive relief and 

that permanent injunctive relief can be granted on a motion for default judgment based solely on 

the allegations in the complaint. However, the cases cited by Plaintiffs do not expressly stand for 

the proposition that permanent injunctive relief need not be “proven up” in the default judgment 

context. Nevertheless, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ argument. Even if Plaintiffs are 

correct and that permanent injunctive relief can be granted solely on the allegations raised in a 

complaint, the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint, accepted as true, do not establish entitlement 

to the injunctive relief requested in Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege facts 

that show that Plaintiffs suffered irreparable injury, that the remedies at law are inadequate to 

compensate Plaintiff’s injuries, that the balance of hardships favors Plaintiffs, or that injunctive 

relief would be in the public’s interest. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 

(2006).

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendant’s misconduct are vague and it is unclear that 

the broad injunctive relief requested is appropriately tailored to remedy the specific harm 

alleged. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). The only 

allegations pertaining to specific instances of misconduct in Plaintiffs’ complaint are Plaintiffs’ 

allegations that Defendant invited a private investigator to participate in a scheme to obtain 

iPhones from Sprint by filing false insurance claims and selling those phones to Defendant. 

Notably, the Complaint does not allege that this plan was ever consummated as there is no 

allegation that the private investigator actually acquired any iPhones or sold any iPhones to 

Defendant. Moreover, there are no allegations of any specific instances where Defendant 

wrongfully acquired or sold Sprint phones or engaged in activities that would be remedied by the 

injunctive relief requested.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Case 1:13-cv-01174-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 8, 2014 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is PARTIALLY GRANTED;

3. DEFAULT JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant 

solely on the issue of liability; and

4. Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01174-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 05/20/14 Page 3 of 3