1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

WOODARD-CM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC.

d/b/a PATIO RENAISSANCE,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Woodard-CM, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Woodard”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, hereby files its Complaint against Defendant, Sunlord Leisure Products, Inc. d/b/a Patio 

Renaissance (“Defendant” or “Sunlord”), and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Delaware, with an address at 650 S. Royal Lane, Suite 100, Coppell, TX 75019. 

2. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

California, with an address at 9118 7th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for breach of contract, and for declaratory and other relief pertaining 

to a settlement agreement with an effective date of August 29, 2019 between the parties (the 

“Settlement Agreement”), which arose out of a prior lawsuit in the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida, styled Woodard-CM, LLC v. Sunlord Leisure Products, Inc. Case 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 28
2

19-cv-22907-CMA (the “First Southern District of Florida Action”). 

4. The parties are citizens of different states within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

and upon information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, 

exclusive of interest and costs.

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332,

2201 and 2202, and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1367.

6. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction is proper in that Defendant 

operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or business venture in this State, and the 

Southern District of Florida, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1). 

7. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction is proper in that Defendant is 

engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this State, and the Southern District of Florida, 

within the meaning of Fla. Stat. §48.193(2) for the reasons set forth below.

8. Defendant profits from the outdoor furniture industry in this State and the Southern 

District of Florida, which are areas well-known for optimal weather to enjoy outdoor furniture yearround.

9. Defendant engages with at least thirty (30) retailers in this State (and approximately 

ten in the Southern District of Florida alone) to sell, advertise, and market outdoor furniture.

10. Defendant contracts with at least one salesperson dedicated to the Florida market to 

sell, advertise, and market outdoor furniture. 

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s salesperson dedicated to the Florida 

market, Justin Pfahl, has been publicly recognized by Defendant for outstanding salesin the Florida 

market:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 28
3

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has received payments from Florida 

consumers purchasing Sunlord products.

13. Defendant sells outdoor furniture products under the trade name and trademark 

PATIO RENAISSANCE.

14. Defendant owns and operates the websites www.patiorenaissance.net and 

www.patiorenaissance.com that advertise and market infringing products to customers in this State 

and the Southern District of Florida.

15. Defendant entices Florida customers to purchase its infringing products through 

specific retailers in this State and the Southern District of Florida via those websites.

16. In fact, Defendant’s websites specifically intend to interact with residents of this 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 3 of 28
4

State. Across the top of its website, Defendant displays a “WHERE TO BUY” section, which then 

immediately tells Florida consumers where they can purchase the Defendant’s products within the 

Southern District of Florida:

17. Defendant also advertises and markets its infringing products to customers in this 

State and the Southern District of Florida, and communicates with customers in this State and the 

Southern District of Florida, through the web page: https://www.facebook.com/Patio-Renaissance286586978080458/.

18. For example, in response to a customer’s request for the Defendant’s Florida 

representative, Sunlord responded with its Florida representative’s contact information:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 4 of 28
5

19. Defendant promotes Florida retailers through at least the following web page: 

https://www.facebook.com/Patio-Renaissance-286586978080458/. For example, Defendant features 

photographs of Florida retailers that sell, advertise, and market Defendant’s products, such as Bruce 

and Iris Sissler of Inside Out Patio, a Florida business located in the Southern District of Florida, and 

Debbie Stegman of Elegant Outdoor, another Florida business.

20. Venue is proper because Defendant solicits, transacts, and is doing business within 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 5 of 28
6

the State of Florida, including in the Southern District of Florida, and Defendant’s products can be 

viewed online by Florida residents (and specifically residents within this judicial district), and can be 

purchased by Florida residents (including those within this judicial district) at the Defendant’s 

showrooms located throughout the State of Florida, including one located in Coral Gables, Florida.

21. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or acts giving rise to the claim occurred in this 

District.

22. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that the Defendant’s contacts are 

sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida, for reasons set forth 

above.

23. Venue is also proper in this District because the Settlement Agreement resolved the 

First Southern District of Florida Action. Defendant has infringed, and continues to intentionally 

infringe on Plaintiff’s rights, notwithstanding the Defendant’s representations and warranties in the 

Settlement Agreement.

24. On or about August 29, 2019, and to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Settlement 

Agreement and to dismiss the First Southern District of Florida Action, Defendant represented that it 

would:

[F]orever refrain from, directly or indirectly, copying, making, importing, 

distributing, offering for sale, selling, and/or directing or causing any third party, 

included but not limited to, manufacturers, distributors, and independent contractors, 

to copy, make, import, distribute, offer for sale, or sell the Accused Furniture 

Designs, the Mallin Furniture Designs (including without limitation those shown in 

Exhibit A), any substantially similar variations thereof (consistent with legal 

standards in or interpreting the Copyright Act), and/or any variations that are likely 

to cause confusion (consistent with the legal standards in or interpreting the Lanham 

Act), with the Mallin Furniture Designs (collectively, the “Enjoined Designs”). 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 6 of 28
7

See Section 2.2 of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit

A.

25. As part of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a voluntary 

Stipulation of Dismissal of the First Southern District of Florida Action. In doing so, Defendant has 

purposefully availed itself of or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court.

26. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s representations that any and all activity pertaining 

to the Enjoined Designs would forever cease, Defendant’s advertising, marketing, offering for sale, 

sales, and other uses of the Enjoined Designs continues to this day. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND WHICH 

FORMED THE BASIS OF THE FIRST ACTION

27. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of high-quality furniture products, including the outdoor 

furniture collections that are the subject of this action, which have garnered great commercial 

success and recognition in the trade and among consumers.

28. Plaintiff is also the owner of, inter alia, the MALLIN and MALLIN CASUAL 

FURNITURE trademarks. 

29. Long prior to the unlawful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff and/or its 

predecessor(s) adopted and began offering for sale several lines of outdoor furniture under various 

collection names, including, but not limited to: “ALBANY” and “ECLIPSE” (collectively, 

“Plaintiff’s Marks”)

30. Defendant is a competitor of Woodard in the outdoor furniture industry.

31. Both Woodard and the Defendant have attended the same trade shows and exhibitions 

in the past. For example, both parties attended and were exhibitors at the International Casual 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 7 of 28
8

Furnishings Association Outdoor Furnishings Preview Show (“Preview Show”), held on July 16 –

July 18, 2019. 

32. Upon information and belief, and as part of its pre-show activities and promotion in 

advance of the Preview Show in 2019, Defendant circulated price sheet(s) and/or catalog(s) 

(“Defendant’s Materials”) which included several lines of outdoor furniture that are identical and/or 

substantially similar copies of Plaintiff’s furniture lines. 

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Materials included lines of furniture 

offered under the identical and infringing names “ALBANY” and “ECLIPSE” (collectively, the 

“Infringing Marks”), among others. 

34. Additionally, upon information and belief, each of the furniture designs offered under 

the Infringing Marks by the Defendant were an identical and/or substantially similar copy of the 

furniture designs offered under each of the Plaintiff’s Marks. 

35. Moreover, upon information and belief, the Defendant’s Materials included stock 

numbers used by the Plaintiff, and Defendant purported to offer the furniture sold under the 

Infringing Marks at a lower price than that offered under Plaintiff’s Marks. 

36. Finally, upon information and belief, the Defendant’s Materials included photographs 

of the Plaintiff’s actual furniture sold under the Plaintiff’s Marks, and were not photographs of 

furniture independently produced by the Defendant.

37. Accordingly, Defendant unfairly benefitted, and the Plaintiff was and has been

irreparably harmed, by the unfair acts of the Defendant, particularly in light of the Preview Show 

being a critical and highly promoted event in the outdoor furniture industry.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 8 of 28
9

THE FIRST ACTION AND THE PARTIES’ 

2019 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

38. On July 12, 2019, Woodard filed the First Southern District of Florida Action, and 

asserted the following claims: (a) Count I – Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (b) 

Count II – Federal Unfair Competition, False Description, and False Designation of Origin, 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (c) Count III - False Designation of Origin and Passing Off Under 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a).

39. The following month, on August 29, 2019, the parties entered into the Settlement 

Agreement to resolve the First Southern District of Florida Action. Exhibit A.

40. On September 6, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With

Prejudice of the First Southern District of Florida Action. Exhibit B.

THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

41. There are several key provisions in the Settlement Agreement that give rise to the 

instant lawsuit. As an initial matter, Defendant acknowledged and agreed that Plaintiff “is the owner 

of, among others, the marks ‘MALLIN,’ ‘ALBANY’, ‘ECLIPSE’, ‘PASSAGE,’ and ‘VOLARE’

and the collections names shown in Exhibit A (the ‘Woodard Trademarks’) used in connection with 

outdoor furniture collections it manufactures and sells under its distinctive Mallin line of outdoor 

furniture designs (the ‘Mallin Furniture Designs’), as shown in Exhibit A.” See Exhibit A at ¶1.1.

42. A reproduction of the Albany designs, which are a collection of the Mallin Designs 

and are part of “Exhibit A” to the Settlement Agreement, are depicted below:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 9 of 28
10

43. Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff’s proprietary rights to the Mallin Designs, 

including that the Albany Designs are “valid and enforceable rights.” See Exhibit A at ¶5. 

44. Second, under Section 2.1, the Defendant represented that it would not use, nor would 

it direct or cause any third party to use, any of the Plaintiff’s trademarks:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 10 of 28
11

2.1. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Sunlord, its parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, licensors, licensees, officers, directors, 

employees, agents, and representatives, has never used, and hereby promise not to 

use, and/or direct or cause any third party, including but not limited to, 

manufacturers, distributors, and independent contractors to use any corporate 

name, trade name, trademark, service mark, brand name, collection name, product 

name, slogan, logo-design, label, packaging, advertisement, price book, 

description, phrase, social media page or domain name incorporating or 

comprising the Woodard Trademarks, either alone or in combination with any 

other words, letters, graphical depictions or color combinations, including any and 

phonetic or foreign equivalents thereof, or any confusingly similar variations 

thereof, and shall further refrain from using any of Woodard’s intellectual 

property, including collection names, stock numbers, photographs, or other indicia 

(each and all of the foregoing referred to hereinafter as the “Enjoined Marks”), in 

connection with furniture or other competing products in the United States and 

throughout the world.

45. Third, and under Section 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant represented 

that it “has never and shall forever refrain” copying, making, distributing, and engaging in other 

conduct pertaining to the “Enjoined Designs,” as defined therein:

2.2. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Sunlord, its parents, subsidiaries, 

affiliates, related companies, licensors, licensees, officers, directors, employees, 

agents, and representatives, has never and shall forever refrain from, directly or 

indirectly, copying, making, importing, distributing, offering for sale, or selling, 

and/or directing or causing any third party, including but not limited to, 

manufacturers, distributors, and independent contractors, to copy, make, import, 

distribute, offer for sale, or sell the Accused Furniture Designs, the Mallin 

Furniture Designs (including without limitation those shown in Exhibit A), any 

substantially similar variations thereof (consistent with legal standards in or 

interpreting the Copyright Act), and/or any variations thereof that are likely to 

cause confusion (consistent with legal standards in or interpreting the Lanham 

Act) with the Mallin Furniture Designs (collectively, the “Enjoined Designs”).

46. Fourth, and under Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants represented 

that it “has never and shall forever refrain” from any advertising or marketing pertaining to the 

Enjoined Marks and/or the Enjoined Designs:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 11 of 28
12

3. No Further Advertising or Marketing of the Enjoined Marks and/or Enjoined 

Designs. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Sunlord, its parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, licensors, licensees, officers, directors, 

employees, agents, and representatives, has never, and shall forever refrain from 

using, licensing, advertising or marketing and/or directing or causing any third 

party, including but not limited to, manufacturers, distributors, and independent 

contractors, to use, license, advertise or market any of the Enjoined Marks and/or 

Enjoined Designs, including without limitation, in a printed medium, such as a 

magazine, newspaper, brochure, price sheet, price book, flyer, leaflet, on signage, 

billboards, or point of purchase displays, or in internet-based advertising, such as 

on any web site or social media page under Sunlord’s possession, custody or 

control.

47. Fifth, the territory of the Settlement Agreement was not only worldwide, but it was 

“binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each of the Parties hereto and their parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, manufacturers, distributors, licensors, licensees, officers, 

directors, employees, agents, independent contractors, and representatives, and each of the 

foregoing’s heirs, successors, successors-in-interest, entities that are acquired by a Party, and 

assigns.” See Exhibit A at ¶11.1 and ¶11.4.

48. Lastly, the Settlement Agreement provides that “[i]n the event that litigation is 

instituted to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to specific performance, 

including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, without any bond required. EACH 

PARTY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. The prevailing party in any action for 

enforcement or breach shall recover its attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount determined 

reasonable by the Court. See Exhibit A at ¶11.3 (emphasis added).

DEFENDANT’S WILLFUL VIOLATIONS AND 

BREACHES OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

49. Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant is violating Sections 2.2 and 3 of the 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 12 of 28
13

Settlement Agreement by selling and advertising for sale furniture designs that are copies of the 

Mallin Designs, namely Woodard’s distinctive “ALBANY” furniture designs (the “Enjoined 

Designs”). 

50. As shown in paragraph 54 below, the unique visual elements of the Plaintiff’s

distinctive “ALBANY” furniture design are copied by the Enjoined Designs. 

51. The Enjoined Designs are advertised, marketed, and sold by the Defendant’s 

authorized retailers. One such example is Galaxy Home Recreations (“Galaxy”), as reflected on the 

Defendant’s website:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 13 of 28
14

52. Defendant’s Enjoined Designs have been and continue to be offered for sale, at a 

minimum, at Galaxy’s showroom in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and on Galaxy’s website at 

https://www.galaxyhomerecreation.com/store/products/d/18810/OUTDOOR/Patio/PatioFurniture/Aberdeen-6pc-Collection. 

53. Upon information and belief, the Enjoined Designs have also been sold and offered 

for sale in this District at Patio Shoppe in Coral Springs, Florida.

54. The Galaxy website advertises and offers for sale the Enjoined Designs under the 

name “PATIO RENAISSANCE ABERDEEN 6PC COLLECTION.” Notably, the description 

clearly states: “Aberdeen Collection by Patio Renaissance.”

55. Defendant’s breach of the Settlement Agreement is clearly evidenced from a side-byside comparison of the Plaintiff’s designs, compared to the Defendant’s Enjoined Designs, a few 

examples of which are shown below:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 14 of 28
15

Plaintiff’s Albany Swivel Rocking Lounge Defendant’s Aberdeen Swivel Rocker

Plaintiff’s Albany Loveseat Defendant’s Aberdeen Loveseat

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 15 of 28
16

56. Defendant’s breach of the Settlement Agreement is not only evidenced by online 

photographs of the Enjoined Designs, but by the actual products themselves. On or about May 28, 

2020, products embodying the Enjoined Designs were purchased directly from Galaxy. Photographs

of the Plaintiff’s “Mallin” design alongside the Defendant’s Enjoined Designs are shown below:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 16 of 28
17

57. As shown below, and when comparing the width of the seat area of one of the 

Plaintiff’s “Albany” pieces with the corollary Enjoined Design piece, the width is the same:

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 17 of 28
18

58. Similarly, when comparing the spacing between the back bars of the Plaintiff’s 

“Albany” piece with the corollary Enjoined Design piece, the width is once again the same:

59. Plaintiff sent Defendant a Notice of Breach Letter on June 15, 2020, although it was 

not required under the Settlement Agreement. See Exhibit C. The Notice of Breach Letter was sent 

not only to immediately resolve the Defendant’s violations of the Settlement Agreement, but also in 

an effort to avoid seeking judicial intervention. 

60. However, and despite being provided evidence of Defendant’s ongoing breaches, 

Defendant refused to accept responsibility for its wrongful conduct, and instead claimed that the 

“Aberdeen” line of products is not part of the Defendant’s collections.

61. In an effort to avoid escalating the matter further, Plaintiff provided Defendant’s 

counsel with a link to the Galaxy web page where the Enjoined Designs were being sold and clearly 

advertised as “Patio Renaissance Aberdeen 6PC Collection.” In response, Defendant (through 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 18 of 28
19

counsel) continued to deny its multiple breaches of the Settlement Agreement, and instead claimed:

Your email is duly received and forwarded to my client for confirmation. 

According to our client, Galaxy Home Recreation IS one of their current 

customers. However, our client never sold anything under the “Aberdeen” 

collection as they do not have this collection. Our client is unaware and not 

sure why that product is under their company name on this customer’s 

website. Please look at our client’s website and check out its catalog at 

www.patiorenaissance.net. Nothing by the name of Aberdeen Collection is 

there.

62. Defendant’s representations are not only false based on the allegations set forth 

above, but also in light of an investigation carried out on behalf of Plaintiff, as detailed in an 

investigative report. A true and correct copy of the investigative report (the “Report”) is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. 

63. Specifically, on or about June 25, 2020, Plaintiff’s investigator visited the 

Defendant’s retailer, Galaxy Home Recreation (located at 4900 W. Kenosha Street, Broken Arrow, 

Oklahoma): 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 19 of 28
20

64. As shown in the Report, Plaintiff’s investigator located the Enjoined Designs, which 

were “prominently displayed near the front of the store:”

65. The tags attached to the Enjoined Designs refer to the source of the Aberdeen

Collection as “PAREN,” an abbreviation for “PATIO RENAISSANCE”; and, as confirmed by the 

Report, even the “table brochure reference[d] Patio Renaissance Sunlord Leisure Products:”

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 20 of 28
21

66. A closer view of the table brochure, or point-of-purchase display, is displayed 

immediately below:

67. As discussed in the Report, the Galaxy representative confirmed that the Enjoined 

Designs “were from Patio Renaissance.”

68. Due to its ongoing and willful violations, Defendant has committed material breaches 

of the Settlement Agreement.

69. Plaintiff has not only been damaged monetarily by Defendant’s wrongful conduct, but 

such conduct has caused and will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and 

unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 21 of 28
22

suffer great and irreparable injury.

70. For example, in the outdoor furniture industry, there is a “Preview Show” held 

annually in July where manufacturers, such as Woodard and Sunlord, display and highlight their new 

collections, and buyers make the majority of their purchasing decisions for the entire year. 

71. Although the Preview Show for 2020 has been cancelled due to the Covid-19

pandemic, buyers in the industry are continuing to make their purchasing decisions in July. 

Therefore, Woodard and other outdoor furniture manufacturers are running “Preview” specials to 

entice buyers to purchase their collections. 

72. As a result, and given the importance of the July time period when buyers make their 

purchasing decisionsfor the entire year, Plaintiff files the instant lawsuit alleging breach of contract 

and seeking declaratory and other relief, including a temporary restraining order, preliminary and 

permanent injunction, and damages.

73. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent as required by contract and governing 

law.

COUNT I – BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

74. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 73 as if fully set forth herein. 

75. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the Settlement Agreement.

76. The Settlement Agreement constitutes a valid and existing contract between the 

parties. Plaintiff performed its obligations under the Settlement Agreement by agreeing to dismiss 

the First Action in the Southern District of Florida.

77. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendant has materially breached the 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 22 of 28
23

Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to, Sections 2.2 and Section 3 of the Settlement 

Agreement.

78. Plaintiff has incurred damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, as a result of Defendant’s 

multiple breaches and seeks recovery on this basis, as well as specific performance as to the 

obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

79. While Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages, Defendant’s acts have also harmed 

Plaintiff’s reputation, damaged Plaintiff’s goodwill, and upon information and belief, have and will 

continue to divert sales from Plaintiff. 

80. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will cause great and irreparable injury to 

Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will 

continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 

81. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the relief requested in the Prayer for 

Relief below.

COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2201

82. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 73

as if fully set forth herein. 

83. This claim is against the Defendant for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 

for necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree under 28 U.S.C. § 2202.

84. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the Settlement Agreement.

85. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff performed its obligations by 

dismissing the First Action in the Southern District of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 23 of 28
24

86. Plaintiff owns and has enforceable rights in the Mallin Furniture Designs, as defined 

in the Settlement Agreement. 

87. In paragraph 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant acknowledged and agreed 

that it “ha[d] never and shall forever refrain from, directly or indirectly, copying, making, importing, 

distributing, offering for sale, selling, and/or directing or causing any third party, included but not 

limited to, manufacturers, distributors, and independent contractors, to copy, make, import, 

distribute, offer for sale, or sell the Accused Furniture Designs, the Mallin Furniture Designs 

(including without limitation those shown in Exhibit A), any substantially similar variations thereof 

(consistent with legal standards in or interpreting the Copyright Act), and/or any variations that are 

likely to cause confusion (consistent with the legal standards in or interpreting the Lanham Act), 

with the Mallin Furniture Designs (collectively, the “Enjoined Designs”).” 

88. A bona fide, actual, and present justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists 

between Plaintiff (and particularly with respect to Plaintiff’s Mallin Furniture Designs) and the 

Defendant (and particularly with respect to its conduct pertaining to the Enjoined Designs), 

concerning Defendant’s advertising, marketing, offering for sale, and sales of the Enjoined Designs, 

which trigger the Defendant’s violations of the Settlement Agreement.

89. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination regarding the Defendant’s advertising, 

marketing, offering for sale, and sales of the Enjoined Designs, which trigger the Defendant’s 

violations of the Settlement Agreement, and a declaration that:

a. Defendant is in violation of the Settlement Agreement, particularly as it relates to 

Sections 2.2 and 3;

b. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s 

breaches of the Settlement Agreement; 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 24 of 28
25

c. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of specific performance, and an order from the 

Court compelling the Defendant to immediately comply with all of the terms and 

obligations in the Settlement Agreement; and

d. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 11.3 of the 

Settlement Agreement;

90. As a result, there is a bona fide dispute between the parties, and a judicial declaration 

is necessary and appropriate in order that the parties may ascertain their respective rights in 

connection with the Settlement Agreement.

91. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

92. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2202, Plaintiff is entitled to necessary or proper relief based 

on a declaratory judgment or decree.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Woodard-CM, LLC requests that the Court grant the relief sought 

in its Prayer for Relief. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court will enter judgment in its favor and against 

Defendant as follows:

A. That the Court enter a temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendant from 

continuing to breach the Settlement Agreement;

B. That the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the 

Defendant from continuing to breach the Settlement Agreement (as specifically provided for under 

Section 11.3 of the Settlement Agreement);

C. That the Plaintiff have the remedy of specific performance, and that the Court order 

the Defendant to comply with all the of the terms and obligations in the Settlement Agreement; 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 25 of 28
26

D. That the Defendant be ordered to pay damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for 

Defendant’s material breaches of the Settlement Agreement;

E. That the Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees as a result of 

Defendant’s material breaches of the Settlement Agreement (as specifically provided for under 

Section 11.3 of the Settlement Agreement);

F. That the Defendant be ordered to provide an accounting; 

G. That Plaintiff recover Defendant’s profits and the damages of Plaintiff arising from 

Defendant’s breaches of the Settlement Agreement;

H. That Defendant’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, retailers, attorneys, 

successors, and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation therewith, be permanently 

enjoined and restrained from engaging in any conduct that breaches the parties’ Settlement 

Agreement;

I. That Defendant be required to recall and deliver up for destruction all goods, labels, 

signs, prints, packages, wrappers, inventory, advertisements, internet advertising and other written or 

printed material in the possession or control of Defendant, or third party advertisers and retailers of 

Defendant’s products which pertain to the Enjoined Designs (including but not limited to the 

Defendant’s “Aberdeen” collection), and any formative variations thereof, and all plates, molds, 

matrices, and other means from making the aforesaid items;

J. That Defendant be required to recall and deliver up for destruction all goods, labels, 

signs, prints, packages, wrappers, inventory, advertisements, internet advertising and other written or 

printed material in the possession or control of Defendant, or third-party advertisers and retailers of 

Defendant’s products that pertain to the claims found by this Court to be in violation of law;

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 26 of 28
27

K. That Defendant be ordered to forthwith identify to Plaintiff all active and passive 

participants in the acts complained of herein and supply to Plaintiff a complete list of the persons 

and/or entities from whom Defendant purchased, and to whom Defendant distributed and/or sold any 

of the Enjoined Designs (or any similar variations thereof), including but not limited to the 

“Aberdeen” collection;

L. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, finding 

that:

1. Defendant is in violation of the Settlement Agreement, particularly as it relates to 

Sections 2.2 and 3;

2. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s

breaches of the Settlement Agreement; 

3. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of specific performance, and an order from the 

Court compelling the Defendant to immediately comply with all of the terms and 

obligations in the Settlement Agreement; and

4. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 11.3 of the 

Settlement Agreement;

M. That, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2202, Plaintiff have and recover further necessary or 

proper relief, based on the Court’s declaratory judgment or decree.

N. That Plaintiff have and recover both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on each 

and every damage award;

O. That Plaintiff have and recover its taxable costs and disbursements herein; and

P. That Defendant be directed to file with this Court, and to serve upon Plaintiff, a 

written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner of compliance with the Plaintiff’s prayer 

for relief;

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 27 of 28
28

Q. That Plaintiff have and recover such further relief as the Court may deem just and 

proper.

Dated: July 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s Meredith Mendez

John Cyril Malloy, III

Florida Bar No. 964,220

jcmalloy@malloylaw.com

Oliver Alan Ruiz

Florida Bar No. 524,786

oruiz@malloylaw.com

Meredith Frank Mendez

Florida Bar No. 502,235

mmendez@malloylaw.com

Jonathan Woodard

Florida Bar No. 0096553 

jwoodard@malloylaw.com

MALLOY & MALLOY, P.L.

2800 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33129

Telephone: (305) 858-8000

Counsel for Plaintiff, Woodard-CM, LLC

Case 1:20-cv-23104-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 28 of 28