Maximum Availability Limited v. Vision Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 434

FINAL JUDGMENT AND CONSENTINJUNCTION by Judge George H. Wu, Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited take nothing on its first claimfor relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and its fourth claimfor relief for trade libel; and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants onthose claims; By consent of the parties, the Order Re Preliminary Injunction entered by the Court on May 20, 2010 [Dkt. # 72] remains in effect during the period afterthis judgment is entered, and until the time for appeal has expired, or, if an appealis taken, until jurisdiction is returned to the District Court, with no admission ofliability by the Defendants. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (pj)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13

MAXIMUM AVAILABILITY
LIMITED, a New Zealand limited liability company

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No. CV 10-1488-GW(RZx)
FINAL JUDGMENT AND CONSENT
INJUNCTION

v.
VISION SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2010, this Court entered its Order Re Preliminary
Injunction as Docket No. 72 (the "Injunction");
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2013, this Court granted the motions for partial

23

summary judgment filed by Defendants Vision Solutions, Inc., Eva Succi, and Sir-

24

ius Computer Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) and dismissed the first

25

claim for relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and the fourth

26

claim for relief for trade libel asserted in Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited’s

27

Fourth Amended Complaint; and

28

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited voluntary dismissed

1

without prejudice the second and third claims for relief asserted in the Fourth

2

Amended Complaint, namely for violations of California’s Unfair Competition

3

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. and California’s False Advertising

4

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., conditioned upon the Injunction in

5

this action remaining in place pending appeal,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

8

1.

9

Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited take nothing on its first claim

for relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and its fourth claim

10

for relief for trade libel; and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants on

11

those claims;

12

2.

Plaintiff's claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition

13

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., and for violations of California’s

14

False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 are dismissed, without

15

prejudice; and

16

3.

By consent of the parties, the Order Re Preliminary Injunction entered

17

by the Court on May 20, 2010 [Dkt. # 72] remains in effect during the period after

18

this judgment is entered, and until the time for appeal has expired, or, if an appeal

19

is taken, until jurisdiction is returned to the District Court, with no admission of

20

liability by the Defendants.

21
22

Dated: December 19, 2013.
Hon. George H. Wu
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

23832.01 /4813-6683-7783, v. 1

-2-