Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01155-3/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

For purposes of consistency, the court maintains the 1

same captioning originally used in the this matter. (See May 13,

2005 Mem. & Order Re: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and

Motion For Declaratory Relief). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BLUE MAGIC PRODUCTS, INC.,

(BOYD FLOTATION, INC., ALLEGED

SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN), 

NO. CIV. S-00-1155 WBS JFM

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-2398 WBS JFM

 

v. ORDER

BLUE MAGIC, INC., et al., (THE

RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

SUCCESSOR),

Defendant.

______________________________

BOYD FLOTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.1

----oo0oo----

On May 13, 2005 the court issued an order authorizing

Rectorseal Corporation (“Rectorseal”) to recover its reasonable

Case 2:00-cv-01155-WBS -JFM Document 326 Filed 08/29/05 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

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in case Nos. 00-

1155 and 04-2398. (May 13, 2005 Mem. & Order Re: Motion to

Enforce Settlement Agreement & Mot. for Declaratory Relief (“May

13, 2005 Mem. & Order”) at 15). On or about June 10, 2005,

Rectorseal filed a motion to recover attorneys’ fees, expenses,

and costs. On August 11, 2005, the court issued an order denying

Rectorseal its costs, but awarding Rectorseal attorneys’ fees in

the amount of $63,112.56. Rectorseal has submitted a proposed

order for entry of judgment for these attorneys’ fees, “plus

interest at 3.9%.” (Def.’s J. Entry at 1). Plaintiff Boyd

Flotation, Inc. (“Boyd Flotation”) objects to the proposed order.

Boyd Flotation correctly notes that the proposed order

is not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

58(a)(1)(c), the rule which governs entry of judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 58(a)(1)(c)(“a separate document is not required for an

order disposing of a motion . . . for attorney[s’] fees. . .

.”)(empahasis addded). The court sees no reason to order entry

of a separate judgment for attorneys’ fees. Therefore,

Rectorseal’s proposed order is rejected.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rectorseal’s request for

an order for an entry of a separate judgment for attorneys’ fees

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 

DATED: August 26, 2005

Case 2:00-cv-01155-WBS -JFM Document 326 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2