Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01984-1/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

 The request for oral argument is denied. The parties have fully briefed the issues and

oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision or result in unfair prejudice. See Lake at Las

Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991);

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sunglass Designs, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wild Style Sunglasses, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1984-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for order to show cause for contempt of court against all

defendants. Dkt. #30. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons that follow, the Court

will deny Plaintiff’s motion.1

I. Background.

Plaintiff initially filed a complaint on October 29, 2008, alleging trademark

infringement and other claims. Dkt. #1. After an amended complaint was filed, the parties

reached a settlement and a final consent judgment was entered on February 25, 2009. The

consent agreement states that Defendants “release Sunglass Designs, Inc. . . . including any

Case 2:08-cv-01984-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/01/09 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

27

28

2

 Plaintiff argues that the Court can make no inquiry into whether Defendants actually

made a claim covered by the consent agreement, citing Botsolas v. Schultz Laboratories, 351

F. Supp. 188 (D.C. Cal. 1972). Botsolas is inapposite. It holds that where a court issues an

injunction against further infringement of a patent pursuant to a consent decree, the Court

will not inquire further into the validity of the patent. Id. at 190. Here the Court clearly must

determine whether the letter to the State Bar, written by a relative of some Defendants,

constitutes a claim and violates the final consent judgment. 

- 2 -

of its . . . attorneys . . . from any and all actions and causes of action, claims, demands,

damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, loss of services, expenses, compensation, suits, debts,

documents, bonds, covenants, contracts, agreements and judgments of whatsoever kind, at

law or in equity, which were asserted or could have been asserted[.]” Dkt. # 28 ¶ 4, 29 ¶ 4.

After the consent judgment was entered, William Zeuner, Sr., father of Defendant

William Zeuner and relation of Defendant Michael Zeuner, sent a letter to the State Bar of

Arizona alleging misconduct on the part of Plaintiff’s attorney, Jordan Meschkow. Dkt. #30

at 9. Meschkow hired an attorney to file a response to the letter, incurring a cost of

$1,505.20. Dkt. # 30 at 87-88. The State Bar determined that further investigation into the

charges was unwarranted. Dkt. #30 at 84. On June 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for

order to show cause for contempt of court against all defendants, alleging that Defendants

violated the consent agreement when William Zeuner, Sr. complained to the State Bar about

Meschkow’s conduct. Dkt. #30. 

II. Motion for order to show cause.

Plaintiff has the burden to prove that Defendants are in contempt of a court order. 

“‘The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor violated the

court’s order by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ not merely by a preponderance of the

evidence.’” United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants are in contempt of court because they violated the

consent judgment by sending the bar complaint. Dkt. #30 at 90.2

 Defendants argue that

Plaintiff’s motion should be denied on four separate grounds. Dkt. #31. Defendants argue

that a consent judgment cannot restrict the right to file a bar complaint as a matter of public

Case 2:08-cv-01984-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/01/09 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

27

28

- 3 -

policy, that the consent judgment in this case did not restrict the right to file a bar complaint

because the letter did not constitute a claim, that the consent judgment was not violated

because William Zeuner Sr. was not a party to the consent agreement, and that the release

in the contempt agreement is not violated by filing a claim – the release is simply a defense

to liability. Id. In reply, Plaintiff restates Defendants’ arguments and asserts that they are

invalid without citing any legal authority whatsoever. Dkt. #32 at 5-8. Plaintiff also appears

to argue that William Zeuner, Sr. is an agent of Defendants and that the letter violated the

release because the release stated that all claims were waived. Id. 

Even assuming that William Zeuner, Sr. is an agent of Defendants, Plaintiff has failed

to show by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants violated the consent judgment.

The plain language of paragraph 4 does not mention bar complaints and Plaintiff has failed

to cite any authority for the proposition that a bar complaint is a cause of action, claim, or

suit as provided in the consent judgment. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to show that a

promise made by Defendants not to file a bar complaint would even be enforceable. The

Ethics Committee of the State Bar of Arizona has stated as a matter of public policy that

every attorney must be accountable for his misconduct and cannot contract away such

accountability. See Ethics Opinion No. 91-23 (Nov. 25, 1991) (holding that an attorney may

not agree to settle a fee dispute with his client on condition that the client agree not to file a

bar complaint against him); see also Eitel v. McCool, 602 F. Supp. 126, 128 (E.D. Wash.

1984) (holding that court would not enforce a provision of a settlement agreement prohibiting

the filing or maintenance of a bar complaint because the provision is clearly contrary to

public policy). In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that “there is an absolute

privilege for anyone who files a complaint alleging unethical conduct by an attorney with a

State Bar Grievance Committee.” Drummond v. Stahl, 618 P.2d 616, 620 (Ariz. 1980).

Thus, even if the consent judgment was construed to encompass a bar complaint, it would

not be enforceable. Defendants have an absolute privilege to make a bar complaint under

Arizona law. 

Case 2:08-cv-01984-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/01/09 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

27

28

- 4 -

Plaintiff also asserts that by requesting attorneys’ fees in the response, Defendants are

making a claim and thus violating the consent judgment. Dkt. #32 at 8. This argument is

specious. The consent judgment provides for an award of attorneys’ fees in actions brought

to enforce the consent judgment or for a violation of the consent judgment. Dkt. ## 28 ¶ 6,

29 ¶ 6. Defendants do not violate the consent judgment by seeking a remedy provided by the

judgment itself. 

III. Request for attorneys’ fees.

Defendants request costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in their response to Plaintiff’s

motion. Dkt. #31. Paragraph 6 of the consent judgment clearly states that “[t]he prevailing

party shall be entitled to allowable costs and reasonable attorney fees associated with any

action to enforce this Final Consent Judgment, or any arising out of a violation of this Final

Consent Judgment.” Dkt. ## 28 ¶ 6, 29 ¶ 6. Because the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion,

Defendants are the prevailing party in an action filed by Plaintiff to enforce the judgment.

The Court therefore will award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees to Defendants. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause (Dkt. #30) is denied.

2. Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. #31) is granted.

3. Defendants must file a memorandum detailing reasonable attorneys’ fees

incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s motion by September 25, 2009. Plaintiff

shall respond by October 9, 2009. No reply shall be filed. 

DATED this 1st day of September, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01984-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/01/09 Page 4 of 4