Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00834/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00834-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL LIZALDE and VEBS, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCED PLANNING

SERVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

On April 19, 2013, Plaintiffs and defendants Larry Chalmers, Beth Chalmers,

and Angela Parrish (“Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion for Permanent Injunction

(“Joint Motion” or “Stipulation”). (ECF No. 163.) In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiffs

and Defendants indicate they “have resolved their disputes by settlement and, as a

condition of that settlement, agreed to stipulate to entry of this Stipulated Permanent

Injunction.” Plaintiffs and Defendants thereafter set forth the terms of their proposed

permanent injunction.

“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise continuing

jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265,

1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “According to well established principles of equity, a plaintiff

seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant

3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB

Case 3:10-cv-00834-GPC-RBB Document 168 Filed 05/16/13 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

such relief.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Indeed,

injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of

right.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). Thus,

one requirement for obtaining injunctive relief is a showing “that remedies available

at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for” the plaintiff’s

“irreparable injury.” Id.

With the foregoing in mind, the Court is not prepared to enter a permanent

injunction pursuant to the Stipulation. The Stipulation reveals Plaintiffs and

Defendants’ agreement to settle this action; it does not indicate that Defendants “will

not abide by the agreed upon settlement, such that a permanent injunction and retention

of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement isrequired.” Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki,

2007 WL 214564, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Defendants’

Joint Motion is DENIED. Because Plaintiffs and Defendants indicate that entry of a

stipulated permanent injunction is a “condition” of their settlement agreement, the

Court’s denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiffs and Defendants wish

to file a joint motion that demonstratesthe requirementsfor a permanent injunction are

satisfied, the Court will permit them to do so. Should Plaintiffs and Defendants wish

to proceed with execution and performance of their settlement agreement

notwithstanding the Court’s denial of their request for a permanent injunction, the

Court directs Plaintiffs and Defendants to file a joint motion for dismissal on or before

May 31, 2013.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB

Case 3:10-cv-00834-GPC-RBB Document 168 Filed 05/16/13 Page 2 of 2