Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01225/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01225-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Realty Executives International, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Otto E. Lugo, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-01225-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Notice of Motion (Doc. 20) that

purported to be a motion seeking an order from the Court vacating the judgment of

default entered by the Clerk of the Court on September 14, 2015, and dismissing this

action for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper venue. The notice was

accompanied by an Attorney’s Affirmation of Merit in support of the notice, which set

forth the defendants’ legal and factual bases for the requested relief, and various

exhibits in support of the notice. 

On October 1, 2015, the Clerk of the Court informed the parties that the Notice

of Motion had been improperly docketed by the defendants’ counsel as a motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and that the Clerk had terminated the motion and had

re-docketed it as a notice.

Case 2:15-cv-01225-PGR Document 24 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

On October 5, 2015, the Court entered a order (Doc. 21) that struck the 

defendants’ Notice of Motion (Doc. 20). That order notified the defendants that their

notice failed to comply in various ways with this Court’s Local Rules. The order in

part informed the defendants that while the Clerk of the Court had entered default

against the defendants, no judgment of default had been entered against them by

the Clerk, and it specifically advised the parties’ counsel that the caption of any

future document filed in this Court had to comply with the party name capitalization

rule of LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). The order further stated: 

If the defendants wish to file an actual motion, accompanied by a

proper memorandum of points and authorities, seeking to set aside the

entry of default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), and/or seeking to

dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (2), (3), (4) and/or

(5), they have the right to do so but any such motion must be properly

denominated as such a motion and must comply with all of the

applicable provisions of LRCiv 7.1 and 7.2.

On October 8, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Default

Judgment and to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, Improper Venue and

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 23). The Court will strike the defendants’

motion without prejudice as not being in compliance with this Court’s Local Rules

and for other deficiencies. 

First Deficiency - Although the body of the motion states that the defendants

are moving in part to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default, the motion is improperly

captioned in part as being a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. Any re-filed

motion must be captioned as seeking the relief actually being sought.

Second Deficiency - The parties’ names in the caption of the motion are fully

capitalized in violation of LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) (“Party names must be capitalized using

proper upper and lower case type.”) Any re-filed motion must be properly

captioned in accordance with LRCiv 7.1.

Case 2:15-cv-01225-PGR Document 24 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

Third Deficiency - The motion states that it is supported by “the ‘Affirmation of

Merit’ of John G. Poli, III, Esq., dated September 24, 2015, and Memorandum in

Support, dated October 4, 2014[.]” No such documents are attached to the motion.

If the defendants are attempting to incorporated by reference documents attached

to their previous Notice of Motion, they may not do so since the previous Notice of

Motion and all of its accompanying documents were stricken from the record. In any

case, the Court does not want an “Affirmation of Merit” from the defendants’ counsel.

What the Court requires is a proper memorandum of points and authorities setting

forth the legal and factual bases for the relief sought by the defendants. Any refiled motion must be accompanied by a proper memorandum of points and

authorities, labeled as such, as required by LRCiv 7.2(b).

Fourth Deficiency - The motion states that it is supported by “Exhibits ‘A’

through ‘K’ annexed thereto[.]” While the motion has exhibits lettered A through K

attached to it, the exhibits are attached in the following order: H, I, F, G, A, B, C, D,

E, K, J. Any re-filed motion must have exhibits attached in their proper order.

The defendants are admonished that if the Court has to waste any more

scarce judicial resources pointing out patently obvious deficiencies in their

documents filed with the Court, the Court will likely impose an appropriate sanction

on the defendants and/or their counsel. 

Also pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

and Request for Default Judgment Hearing (Doc. 22). This cursory motion is also

deficient because it is not accompanied by the memorandum of points and

authorities required by LRCiv 7.2(b). Rather than just striking the motion, the Court

will deny it without prejudice to being re-filed, if appropriate, after the Court resolves

the procedural issues the defendants have been attempting to raise inasmuch as

Case 2:15-cv-01225-PGR Document 24 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

the Court cannot in any case enter default judgment if it has no personal jurisdiction

over the defendants. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

and to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, Improper Venue and for Lack of

Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 23) is stricken without prejudice to being re-filed in a

manner that fully complies with this Order and the Court’s Local Rules of Practice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall, no later than

November 6, 2015, either file their motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c) and/or

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) or a statement that they are not going to file any such motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

and Request for Default Judgment Hearing (Doc. 22) is denied without prejudice to

being properly re-filed, if appropriate, after any issues regarding the propriety of the

entry of default, service of process, venue and personal jurisdiction are resolved by

the Court.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-01225-PGR Document 24 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 4