Nike, Inc. v. Karim Shareef Toney et al
Filing
20
CONSENT DECREE by Judge John F. Walter. The Court, having read and considered the Joint Stipulation re Entry of Proposed Consent Decree 19 . GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, that the Permanent Injunction and findings made by the Court previously in t he Judgment Pursuant to Entry of Default, Docket No. 17 , shall remain in effect, and further ORDERS as follows: The monetary portion only, of the Judgment Pursuant to Entry of Default, Docket No. 17 , is vacated. This Consent Decree shall be deeme d to have been served upon Defendant at the time of its execution by the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree. The above-captioned action, shall, upon filing by Plaintiff of the Settlement Agreement, Joint Stipulation Re Entry Of [Proposed] Judgment, Proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, and requesting entry of judgment against Defendant, be reopened should Defendant default under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (jp)
5
J. Andrew Coombs (SBN 123881)
andy@coombspc.com
Annie Wang (SBN 243027)
annie@coombspc.com
J. Andrew Coombs, A P. C.
517 E. Wilson Ave., Suite 202
Glendale, California 91206
Telephone: (818) 500-3200
Facsimile: (818) 500-3201
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nike, Inc.
7
10
Karim Shareef Toney a/k/a Karim Toney
d/b/a www.freshtodeaf.com,
www.freshtodeaf.net and FreshToDeaf
ktoney1@hotmail.com
460 Canyon Oaks Drive, #F
Oakland, California 94605
Telephone: (510) 648-5543
11
Defendant, in pro se
1
2
3
4
8
9
closed
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Nike, Inc.,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Karim Shareef Toney a/k/a Karim Toney, )
)
an individual and d/b/a
)
www.freshtodeaf.com,
www.freshtodeaf.net and FreshToDeaf )
)
and Does 1 – 10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
Case No. CV11-1605 JFW (CWx)
CONSENT DECREE
The Court, having read and considered the Joint Stipulation re Entry of
21
Proposed Consent Decree that has been executed by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. (“Nike” or
22
“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Karim Shareef Toney a/k/a Karim Toney, an individual and
23
doing business as www.freshtodeaf.com, www.freshtodeaf.net and FreshToDeaf
24
(“Defendant”) in this action:
25
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS that the
26
27
28
-1-
1
Permanent Injunction and findings made by the Court previously in the Judgment
2
Pursuant to Entry of Default, Docket No. 17, shall remain in effect, and further
3
ORDERS as follows:
4
1)
The monetary portion only, of the Judgment Pursuant to Entry of Default, Docket
5
No. 17, is vacated.
6
2)
This Consent Decree shall be deemed to have been served upon Defendant at the
7
time of its execution by the Court.
8
3)
The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action to entertain such further
9
proceedings and to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to
10
implement and enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree.
11
4)
The above-captioned action, shall, upon filing by Plaintiff of the Settlement
12
Agreement, Joint Stipulation Re Entry Of [Proposed] Judgment, Proposed Judgment
13
Pursuant to Stipulation, and requesting entry of judgment against Defendant, be
14
reopened should Defendant default under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
15
5)
This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Defendant for the purpose of making
16
further orders necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this consent
17
decree and judgment; the enforcement hereof; the punishment of any violations hereof,
18
and for the possible entry of a further Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation in this action.
19
20
DATED: November 21, 2012
21
____________________________
Hon. John F. Walter
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?