Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04146/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04146-24/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KOON CHUN HING KEE SOY & SAUCE

FACTORY, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EASTIMPEX, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 04-4146 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;

VACATING HEARING

In its Memorandum of Decision; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed

February 2, 2007, the Court found, inter alia, that defendants L.A. Victory, Inc. and Joe P.

Zhao had waived the affirmative defense of “extenuating circumstances.” (See

Memorandum of Decision, filed February 2, 2007, at 21:9 - 22:5.)

Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed March 11, 2007 and revised March 15,

2007, to amend the Court’s February 2, 2007 decision, pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by which motion defendants ask the Court to find the

subject defense was not waived, and to decide the merits of the defense. Plaintiff Koon

Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory has filed opposition, to which defendants have

replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court deems the motion appropriate for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing

scheduled for April 20, 2007, and rules as follows.

Case 3:04-cv-04146-MMC Document 213 Filed 04/17/07 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

1

Defendants’ reliance on testimony given by Joe P. Zhao (“Zhao”) at his deposition is

unpersuasive; each excerpt on which defendants rely involves Zhao’s giving a nonresponsive answer to a question that did not pertain to the defense of extenuating

circumstances. Defendants’ reliance on their having provided various bank statements to

plaintiff, in response to discovery requests, likewise is unpersuasive; such documents

pertained to the claimed unlawful profits realized by defendants at the time of the

transactions at issue, not to Zhao’s financial status at or around the time of trial, the time

period relevant to the issue of whether imposition of treble damages would result in Zhao’s

inability to support his family.

2

The Court, for the reasons stated by plaintiff in its opposition, finds plaintiff did not

implicitly consent to litigation of the defense of extenuating circumstances, and,

consequently, there is no basis to amend the finding that said defense was waived.1

 (See

Decision, filed February 2, 2007, at 21:19 - 22:5.)

In any event, even if the Court were to find the defense was not waived,

consideration of the merits would not change the outcome. In support of the defense,

defendants, in their written closing argument, in which the defense was raised for the first

time, relied solely on the testimony of Zhao, who testified at trial as to his then-current

financial situation. (See id. at 21:27-28, 22:26-28.) Defendants chose to offer no

documentary evidence to corroborate Zhao’s testimony, for example, contemporaneous

bank records, recently-filed tax forms, recently-executed loan documents, recentlycancelled or recently-placed orders from customers, or any other document that might shed

light on Zhao’s present financial status, even though such or similar documents were wholly

within defendants’ control. As discussed in the Court’s February 2, 2007 decision, Zhao’s

credibility is compromised, and the Court declines to accept as true the above-referenced

uncorroborated testimony. Consequently, the Court finds defendants have failed to meet

their burden of demonstrating the presence of extenuating circumstances. See Louis

Vuitton S.A., 875 F. 2d 584, 590 (7th Cir.) (holding “extenuating circumstances” defense

“intended for extreme cases,” for example, where “imposition of treble damages would

mean the defendant would be unable to support his or her family”); see also Levi Strauss &

Co. v. Shilon, 121 F. 3d 1309, 1314 (9th Cir.1997) (citing favorably to Louis Vuitton S.A.;

stating “extenuating circumstances” defense is “extremely narrow”).

Case 3:04-cv-04146-MMC Document 213 Filed 04/17/07 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, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04146-MMC Document 213 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3