Mauricio Pinzon v. Guilermina Vazquez et al

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 1, filed March 22, 2018). Insofar as plaintiff requests the Court to issue a temporary restraining order, the Court DENIES this request. Once plaintiff files proof of service with respect to all defendants, the Court at that time may consider a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction filed pursuant to Local Rule 651. Additionally, the Court DENIES plaintiffs request for an order to show cause as to why defendants should not be enjoined from their use of La Sonora Dinamita. (lc) .Modified on 4/13/2018 .(lc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-02347-CAS(ASx)
Date April 13, 2018
MAURICIO PINZON v. GUILERMINA VAZQUEZ ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

Not Present 
Not Present 
(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY
Proceedings:  
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 1, filed March 22, 2018)

I.

INTRODUCTION

On March 22, 2018, plaintiff Mauricio Pinzon filed the instant trademark
infringement action against defendants Guilermina Vasquez, Guillermo Noches Lievano,
Eric Cario, Aladino Valencia, Raul Mendoza, Elizabeth Maita, Roberto Centeno, Irma
Ruiz, and Does 1-10. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges that the record label Discos
Fuentes registered the band name and trademark “La Sonora Dinamita” with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office on September 14, 1993, and subsequently renewed
the trademark on July 18, 2016. See Compl. Plaintiff alleges that Discos Fuentes granted
plaintiff an exclusive license to this trademark on June 21, 2017, and asserts that
defendants are misappropriating the trademark by advertising and holding public
performances using the name “La Sonora Dinamita,” thereby deceiving plaintiff’s
customers. See id. Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order and requests the
Court to issue an order to show cause as to why defendants should not be preliminarily
enjoined from this conduct. Id.
A court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse
parties or their attorneys only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s
attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should
not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff has not provided proof of service in connection with his verified
complaint, indicating that defendants do not have actual notice of this lawsuit.

CV-2347 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-02347-CAS(ASx)
Date April 13, 2018
MAURICIO PINZON v. GUILERMINA VAZQUEZ ET AL.

Accordingly, insofar as plaintiff requests the Court to issue a temporary restraining order,
the Court DENIES this request. Once plaintiff files proof of service with respect to all
defendants, the Court at that time may consider a noticed motion for a preliminary
injunction filed pursuant to Local Rule 65–1.
Additionally, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause as
to why defendants should not be enjoined from their use of “La Sonora Dinamita.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-2347 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                   CMJ 

00 

Page 2 of 2