Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00047/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00047-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an individual, )

) 2:04-cv-0047-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a ) 

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Since I have already spent considerable time preparing draft

jury instructions for the impending trial of this action and

mistakenly assumed the parties’ proposed instructions filed 

September 9, 2005, would be numbered “in a manner that shows where

each . . . instruction should be placed in the . . . instructions,”

(Final Pretrial Order, June 21, 2005, at 15), the parties are directed

to file a complete set of the preliminary and closing jury

instructions they desire no later than October 5, 2006.

Further, since Plaintiff contends the notice given to

Defendant’s counsel constituted substantial performance of notice

required by contract, sufficient reason has not been provided for

including Plaintiff’s additional notice instruction.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 149 Filed 09/14/06 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

The parties need only include the first sentence of their

proposed instruction No. 3 since I need not tell the jury about

answering a specific question on the jury verdict form.

The parties shall meet again to discuss Defendant’s

objections to this Court’s proposed jury instructions Nos. 9 and 10. 

Agreement should be reachable on these instructions.

Defendant’s objection to instruction No. 12 is sustained. 

(See Parties’ Joint Submission Re Additional Jury Instructions and

Verdict Forms, Sept. 9, 2005, at 23.)

Unless Defendant explains how it will be prejudiced if

Plaintiff’s position on how to prevent double recovery is adopted,

Plaintiff’s position will be adopted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 149 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2