Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03391/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03391-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Docket No. 22.

2

Docket No. 31.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XTENDED BEAUTY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

XTREME LASHES,

Defendant. /

No. C07-03391 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME TO

HEAR DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO

THE COURT’S EXERCISE OF

JURISDICTION

Before the Court is Defendants Xtreme Lashes, LLC (“Xtreme Lashes”) and Joumana

Mouselli’s (“Mouselli,” collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Shorten the Time to Hear Defendants’

Objection to the Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction.1

 Defendants’ Objection to the Court’s Exercise of

Jurisdiction is noticed for October 30, 2007.2

 Plaintiff Xtended Beauty (“Plaintiff”) opposes the

Motion. 

Defendants request that the Court hear their Objection to the Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction

on an expedited basis pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. (Def.’s Motion at 2.) Civil Local Rule 6-3

requires Defendants to, inter alia, identify the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the

Court did not expedite the proceeding. Defendants contend that this Court’s findings on their

Objection to the Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction will determine whether an action currently pending

in Texas between the same parties should go forward. 

Case 3:07-cv-03391-MJJ Document 33 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 filed this action on June 28, 2007 in the Northern District of California. (Docket

No. 1.) A month later, Defendants filed suit against Plaintiff in the Southern District of Texas. 

(Def.’s Motion at 2.) On September 7, 2007 this Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in

the alternative, Motion to Transfer venue. (Docket No. 21.) Shortly thereafter, the court in the

Southern District of Texas required the parties to submit briefing regarding whether the Texas case

should be dismissed. (Def.’s Motion at 2.) Defendants contend that they need this Court to review

their Objection to the Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction on an expedited basis or else their Texas case

will be dismissed.

Four days after Defendants filed this motion, however, the Judge presiding over the Texas

case delayed dismissal of the Texas case pending the resolution of the Defendant’s Objection to the

Court’s Exercise Jurisdiction before this Court. (Plf.’s Opp. Exh. E.) Defendants present no other

arguments regarding the substantial harm or prejudice they will face if the Court does not grant this

Motion. On the other hand, granting this Motion may prejudice Plaintiff by shortening Plaintiff’s

time to respond to Defendant’s Objection to the Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction. (Plf.’s Opp. at 3.) 

The Court therefore finds that Defendants have not met their burden under Civil Local Rule

6-3 and accordingly DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Shorten Time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2007. 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03391-MJJ Document 33 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2