Page 1 of 11

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODAN & FIELDS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHAHZAD GILANI; SHAIKH KASHIF ALI; 

DARLIN GELILANG; TOP BRANDS 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 

through 100,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number: 3:16-cv-07242-JSC

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All 

Judges of the Northern District of California dated July 1, 2011 and Civil Local Rule 16-9. 

1. Jurisdiction & Service

Plaintiff’s Position:

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1338, 

and 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Rodan & Fields, LLC’s (“R+F”) claims arise under federal law, 

and to the extent they arise under state law, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction. All named 

defendants, Shaikh Kashif Ali (“Ali”), Darlin Gelilang (“Gelilang”), Shazad Gilani (“Gilani”), 

and Top Brands International, Inc. (“Top Brands”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) have 

returned to R+F executed Waiver of Service of Summons forms (see Docs. 26, 27, 28, and 29). 

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 11

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

Per their respective waiver of service forms, Defendants have until July 17, 2017 to file an 

answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint.

Defendants’ Position (if different):

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and requires change of venue to Illinois 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Defendants and the business are out of Illinois, and 

majority of all events occurred in Illinois. That this Court is presently hearing the case pursuant 

to Section 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367, where Rodan and Fields raised claims they arise 

under California law and federal laws contending this Court has supplemental jurisdiction and 

that they have served Defendants by waiver of service (See Docs 26, 27, 28 and 29). Defendants 

contend that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) covers and determines proper venue and jurisdiction and that 

the action should be transferred to Illinois.

2. Facts

Plaintiff’s Position:

This is an action for damages and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act and California 

law. The principal facts concern the Defendants’ sale and facilitation of sales of products 

bearing R+F’s registered trademarks (the “R+F Marks”) on the Internet. R+F has informed 

Defendants that the products they are selling or facilitating the sale of are not genuine and, thus, 

infringe on the R+F Marks. Defendants disagree. 

Defendants’ Position (if different):

This is a claim by Plaintiff for damages and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act and 

California law. Plaintiffs’ contend Defendants have sold and facilitated sales of products bearing 

R & F’s registration trademarks on the internet. Defendants contend they have NEVER sold any 

R & F products on the internet, but operate only as a facilitating service provider for customers 

who transact on the internet to pick up, package and ship their products to their customers, and 

therefore have not facilitated any violation of R & F’s registered trademark. R & F contends 

Defendants are in cooperation with other businesses selling on the internet; Defendants contend 

they have no association with those businesses, other than as a customer to ship a product they 

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 2 of 12
Page 3 of 11

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

sold. Plaintiff ties this together because Defendants use their address on shipping packages as a 

return a address; Defendants contend they use their address solely to insure shipping is fulfilled 

and has no relation to a customer internet cite. Plaintiffs disagree.

3. Legal Issues

Plaintiff’s Position:

The main legal issues are as follows: (1) whether Defendants’ sale of products bearing

the R+F Marks constitutes trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a)(1)(a); 

(2) whether Defendants’ sale and advertising of sales on the Internet of products bearing the R+F 

Marks constitutes false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(b); (3) whether Defendants’ use 

of the R+F Marks in connection with the sale and advertising of products on the Internet 

constitutes unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); (4) whether Defendants’ conduct has 

diluted the R+F Marks under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c); (5) whether Defendants unauthorized use of 

the R+F marks to sell and advertise goods on the Internet constitutes trademark infringement 

under California common law; (6) whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes unfair competition 

under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et. seq.; (7) whether Defendants Ali and Gilani—as 

former R+F Consultants—breached the terms of their Consultant Agreement by selling R+F 

products on the Internet; (8) whether Defendants Top Brands and Ali have tortiously interfered 

with R+F’s contracts with its current Consultants by causing the breach of R+F’s Consultant 

Agreements with its Consultants and providing Consultants with the means to conduct 

unauthorized sales of R+F products on the Internet; (9) whether Defendants have tortiously 

interfered with R+F’s prospective business relationships; (10) whether Defendants Top Brands 

and Ali have engaged in contributory trademark infringement by knowingly providing, among 

other things, the storage, picking, packing, shipping, and distribution of products that infringe on 

the R+F Marks. 

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 11

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

Defendants’ Position (if different):

Defendants main legal issues are as follows: (1) Amended Complaint does not allege 

facts demonstrating venue in this Jurisdiction is proper pursuant 28 USC §§ 1391(b) and 1406 

(a); (2) Venue in District is Improper pursuant to 28 USC § 1404 (a) and should be transferred to 

Illinois;

(3) Lanham Act Trade Dress was not violated by Defendants pursuant to 15 USC § 1125 (a); (4)

R & F fails to show Defendants did any False Advertising under Lanham Act and California’s 

Business & Professions Code 17500 and section 43 (A); (5) the Amended Complaint fails to 

state a claim for Relief; (6) Plaintiff cannot produce any evidence that Defendants violated any 

Trademark Infringement; (7) Plaintiffs cannot meet the special requirements under the Lanham 

Act to avoid a First Amendment question and R & F cannot demonstrate likelihood of any 

confusion caused by Defendants; (8) Lanham Act, in light of First Amendment, R & F 

infringement claims cannot stand; (9) R & F cannot show a likelihood of confusion of R & F 

product origin or affiliation between R & F and Defendants; (10) R & F cannot prove confusion 

as to Product origin or affiliation; (11) R & F claims fails under traditional confusion analysis; 

(12) R & F initial interest confusion theory has no merit; (13) R & F cannot prove any causation 

by Defendants; (14) Any use of the R & F Product by Top Brands and Defendants is protected as 

Nominative Fair Use, (15) Defendants have not contributed to any contributory trademark 

infringement by knowingly providing, among other things, the storage, picking, packing, 

shipping, and distribution of products that infringe on the R+F Marks and (16) whether 

Defendants Top Brands and Ali have tortiously interfered with R+F’s contracts with its current 

Consultants by causing the breach of R+F’s Consultant Agreements where no agreement existed 

and where R & F allows other consultants the means to conduct unauthorized sales of R+F 

products on the Internet.

4. Motions

Plaintiff’s Position:

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 4 of 12
Page 5 of 11

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

Shortly after filing the Original Complaint, R+F filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

(Doc. 10), but as a result of new information learned from communications with Defendant Ali 

and Top Brands, R+F withdrew that motion (Doc. 14) in order to file the First Amended 

Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 13), but this 

motion was mooted by the filing of R+F’s filing of the First Amended Complaint. R+F also 

filed a Motion to Enlarge Time Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 to facilitate potential settlement 

discussions and to allow R+F time to file the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16). This Motion 

to Enlarge Time was granted on March 14, 2017. (Doc. 18). Subsequently, R+F filed a second 

Motion to Enlarge Time Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 in order to allow potential settlement 

discussions and to allow Defendants to appear. (Doc. 24). This Motion to Enlarge Time was 

granted on May 18, 2017. (Doc. 25). Also on May 18, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for 

Continuance of May 23, 2017 Hearing. (Doc. 30). This motion was mooted by the Court’s order 

granting R+F’s Motion to Enlarge Time. 

R+F recently received copies of a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment 

on behalf of, from the face of the motions, all Defendants. R+F intends to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(d) motion requesting that the Court delay consideration of the summary judgment motion 

because there has not been sufficient time for discovery in this matter. R+F may file a request 

for a brief extension of the time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. R+F also anticipates filing 

a motion to strike both the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary judgement as to 

Defendant Top Brands International, Inc., as this Defendant is an Illinois corporation and cannot 

represent itself pro se. And, should Top Brands International, Inc. not file a valid response to the 

Complaint, R+F may need to file a Motion for Default Judgment. Though it appears from the 

face of the two Motions that Top Brands International, Inc. joins in the Motions, R+F 

acknowledges Defendants’ statement below that discusses finding counsel for Top Brands 

International, Inc. 

Defendants’ Position (if different):

Defendants stipulate to the Plaintiff’s above Position as to Motions. Defendants have 

mailed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2017, not heard 

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 11

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

yet. Defendants intend to file a Motion on Top Brands International, Inc.’s behalf to wait until 

the two motions by Defendants are heard, or in the alternative, for an extension of time, to hold 

any required motions, in order to locate an attorney to defend Top Brands, a corporation.

5. Amendment of Pleadings

The parties propose that the deadline for the amendment of pleadings be December 15, 

2017.

6. Evidence Preservation

Although the parties believe that the discovery of electronically stored information 

(“ESI”) is likely in this case, the parties have no special concerns concerning ESI at this time. 

Once all of the Defendants have answered or responded to the First Amended Complaint, the 

parties will schedule an ESI Meet and Confer. Should any ESI preservation issues arise as a 

result of that conference, the parties will amend this Case Management Statement. 

7. Disclosures

Because Defendants have not yet filed their Answers or otherwise responded to the First 

Amended Complaint, the parties have not exchanged Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures at this time. 

The parties submit that they will exchange Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures no later than 20 days 

after Defendants’ file their responses to the First Amended Complaint. 

8. Discovery

No discovery has been taken to date. The parties anticipate that discovery will include 

requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, interrogatories, and depositions. 

The parties anticipate no need to limit or otherwise modify the discovery rules, no need for a 

stipulated e-discovery order, and no foreseeable discovery disputes. The parties propose that the 

discovery schedule be set with a discovery deadline of February 23, 2018.

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 6 of 12
Page 7 of 11

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

9. Class Actions

This matter is not a class action. 

10. Related Cases

There are no related cases between these parties. 

11. Relief

Plaintiff’s Position:

R+F seeks relief in the form of an injunction against Defendants prohibiting them from 

further infringement of the R+F Marks and any sale of R+F products on the Internet, damages in 

an amount to be determined at trial consisting of R+F’s lost sales attributable to Defendants’

conduct, the disgorgement of Defendants’ profits from sales of products bearing the R+F Marks, 

increased damages as provided for under 15 U.S.C. §1117, R+F’s attorney’s fees and costs of 

this action, and punitive damages. 

Defendants’ Position (if different):

Defendants seek relief in form of dismissal of all claims against Defendants, where they 

have not sold any R & F Products on any internet store; the cost of having to handle this court 

action and defend ourselves; the cost of any attorney for Top Brands International, Inc; complete 

dismissal and acknowledgement Defendant Gilani is no part of this action and Defendant 

Gelilang should be dismissed as she never sold any R & F products online and she removed her 

personal blog after getting notification from R & F; and if the case proceeds and Defendants 

overcome, any loss of earnings caused from this action by Top Brands International, Inc. and 

Defendants, and attorney fees and costs of this action.

12. Settlement and ADR

The parties have engaged in preliminary settlement discussions and are hopeful that the 

matter may be resolved prior to trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 11

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

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

Whether all parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings 

including trial and entry of judgment. X YES ____ NO

14. Other References

None.

15. Narrowing of Issues

None.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure

The parties do not seek the application of the expedited trial procedure.

17. Scheduling

Disclosure and report of plaintiff expert(s) by: December 15, 2017 

Disclosure and report of defendant expert(s) by: January 19, 2018

Discovery deadline: February 23, 2018

Deadline to file Motions for Summary Judgment: March 9, 2018

Hearing on Summary Judgment Motions: May 18, 2018 

Pretrial Conference: July 27, 2018

Trial: August 13, 2018

18. Trial

This case will be tried before a jury. The parties anticipate trial to last 4 days. 

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 8 of 12
Page 9 of 11

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

R+F filed its Certificate of Interested Persons on December 27, 2016 (Doc. 8). As stated 

in R+F’s certificate, there are no other interested parties other than R+F.

The Defendants have not yet filed Certifications of Interested Entities or Persons but will 

do so within 21 days of answering the First Amended Complaint. 

20. Professional Conduct

All attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the 

Northern District of California.

21. Other

The parties have nothing else to report. 

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 11

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

Dated: July 6, 2017. /s/ Adam C. Sherman

Dated: ______________, 2017.

Counsel for Rodan & Fields, LLC

Defendant, Pro se

“Without Recourse,” 810 ILCS 5/1-308

By: ____________________________________

Shazad Gilani, Defendant

1133 Coventry Circle 

Glendale Heights, Illinois 60139

Emails: ssgilani76@gmail.com

 

Defendant, Pro se

“Without Recourse,” 810 ILCS 5/1-308

By: ____________________________________

Darlin Gelilang, Defendant

1133 Coventry Circle

Glendale Heights, Illinois 60139-4514

Email: lyngelilang@yahoo.com

Defendant, Pro se

“Without Recourse,” 810 ILCS 5/1-308

For: ___________________________________

Shaikh Ali, 

1133 Coventry Circle

Glendale Heights, Illinois 60139-4514

Email: kashif@topbrandsintl.com

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 10 of 12
1 Dated; ^2017.

Counsel for Rodan & Fields, LLC 2

3

4

4

Dated: SkMth liashf kji' 5 0 ^ 2017.

Defendant, Pro se

“Without Recourse,” 810ILCS 5/1-308

By:

Shazad Gilani, Defendant

1133 Coventry Circle

Glendale Heists, Illinois 60139

Emails: ssgilani76@gmail.com

6

7

8

9

10

Defendant, Pro se

Without Recourse,” 810 ILCS 5/1-308

11

iC

12

Darlin Geldang, Defendant

1133 Coventry Circle

Glendale Heights, Illinois 60139-4514

Email: lvngelilang@vahoo.com

By:

13

14

15

16 Defendant, Pro se

WithoutRecourse,” 810 ILCS 5/1-308

For: l<ASh'f Ma"

Shaikh Ah,

1133 Coventry Circle

Glendale Heists, Illinois 60139-4514

Email: kashif@toDbrandsintl.com

17

18

19 4

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 9 of10

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 11 of 12
Page 11 of 11

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODAN & FIELDS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHAHZAD GILANI; SHAIKH KASHIF ALI; 

DARLIN GELILANG; TOP BRANDS 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 

through 100,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number: 3:16-cv-07242-JSC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER is 

approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties shall comply with its 

provisions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 35 Filed 07/06/17 Page 12 of 12