Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02266/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02266-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Heer Motel Partners, LLC, a California

limited liability company; and Baljit S.

Heer and Parvinder Heer, husband and

wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2266-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Doc. #3.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice and set a

hearing regarding the status of this case.

Discussion

Plaintiff commenced this action and filed the motion for preliminary injunction more

than seven months ago on July 29, 2005. Docs. ##1, 3. Plaintiff did not serve process on

Defendants within the time required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court accordingly issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the case should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. #5. The Court subsequently granted

Case 2:05-cv-02266-DGC Document 16 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve. Docs. ##6-7. Plaintiff filed affidavits of

service on January 19, 2006. Docs. ##8-10.

When Defendants did not file answers or otherwise respond to the complaint, the

Clerk entered default pursuant to Rule 55(a). Doc. # 12. On February 28, 2006, counsel for

Defendants was granted pro hac vice admission to appear and practice in this action. Docs.

##14-15. To date, however, Defendants have not moved to set aside the entry of default. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Nor has Plaintiff moved for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(b). The Court accordingly will deny the motion for preliminary injunction without

prejudice and set hearing regarding the status of the case.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. #3) is denied without

prejudice.

2. A status hearing is set for March 30, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02266-DGC Document 16 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2