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)

Download PDF
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?