Trowbridge Sidoti LLP v. Kim Lisa Taylor et al

Filing 122

JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, pursuant to the jury verdict entered on February 23, 2018 (ECF No. 108 ), and the Court's entry of partial summary judgment against Plaintiff's first, seco nd, and third claims for relief on August 28, 2017 (ECF No. 62 ), that: 1. Plaintiff's first claim for False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), second claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, and third claim for violation of common law unfair competition are dismissed with prejudice, as explained in the Courts August 28, 2017, Order. (ECF No. 62 .) 2. Counterclaimant Kim Lisa Taylor's claim for an accounting is dismissed with preju dice pursuant to a settlement on the record during trial. 3. Defendants must pay Plaintiff $7,800.00 in damages, which may be offset against the settlement funds, as set forth on the record at trial, plus postjudgment interest, as may be provided by law. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14
15
16
17

)
) Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

TROWBRIDGE SIDOTI LLP, a
California Limited Liability
Partnership,

KIM LISA TAYLOR, an individual;
and SYNDICATION ATTORNEYS,
PLLC, a Florida Professional Limited
Liability Company,
Defendants.

18
19
20

This action came before the above-titled Court for a trial by jury. The issues

21
22

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict on February 23, 2018. (ECF

23

No. 108.) The jury found:

24

1.

25

SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership instead

26

of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

Do

you

find

that

Kim

Taylor

transferred

her

ownership

in

27
28

__X _ Yes. _____ No.
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-1-

1
2

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #2. If you entered “NO” please

3

proceed to question #8.

4
5

2. Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in

6

SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM to the Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership?

7
8

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

9
10

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #3. If you entered “NO” please

11

proceed to question #8.

12

3.

13

a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to

14

possess the SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM domain?

Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by

15
16

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

17
18

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #4. If you entered “NO”, please

19

proceed to question #8.

20
21

4.

Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence

22

that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and

23

substantially

24

SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM?

interfered

with

Trowbridge

Sidoti’s

domain,

25
26

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-2-

1

If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #5. If you entered “NO”, then

2

proceed to question #8.

3
4

5.

Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

5
6

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

7
8

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #6. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

9

question #8.

10
11

6.

Do you find that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

12

harm to Plaintiff?

13
14

_____ Yes. _____ No.

15
16

If you entered “YES , proceed to question #7. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

17

question #8.

18
19

7. How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants’ conduct?

20
21

$____________________

22
23

8.

Do

you

find

Kim

Taylor

acquired

ownership

24

of

the

domain

SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM when she registered it?

25
26

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

27
28

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #10. If “NO”, proceed to question #9.

Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-3-

1
2

9.

Do you find that Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domain

3

SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM on behalf of Trowbridge & Taylor when she

4

registered it?

5
6

____ Yes. _____ No.

7
8

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #11. If “NO”, proceed to question #10.

9
10

10.

Do

you

find

that

Kim

Taylor

transferred

her

ownership

in

11

SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership

12

instead of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

13
14

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

15
16

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #11. If you entered “NO” please

17

proceed to question #17.

18
19

11.

Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in

20

SYNIDCATIONLAWYERS.COM to the Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership?

21
22

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

23
24

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #12. If you entered “NO” please

25

proceed to question #17.

26
27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-4-

1

12.

Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by

2

a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to

3

possess the SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM domain?

4
5

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

6
7

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #13. If you entered “NO”, please

8

proceed to question #17.

9
10

13.

Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence

11

that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and

12

substantially

13

SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM?

interfered

with

Trowbridge

Sidoti’s

domain,

14
15

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

16
17

If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #14. If you entered “NO”, then

18

proceed to question #17.

19
20

14.

Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

21
22

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

23
24

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #15. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

25

question #17.

26
27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-5-

1

15.

Do you find that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

2

harm to Plaintiff?

3
4

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

5
6

If you entered “YES, proceed to question #16. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

7

question #17.

8
9

16.

How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants’ conduct?

10
11

$ 7,800.00

12
13

Please proceed to question #17.

14
15

17.

Do

you

find

Kim

Taylor

acquired

ownership

16

of

the

domain

SYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM when she registered it?

17
18

__ __ Yes. __X__ No.

19
20

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #19. If “NO”, proceed to question #18.

21
22

18.

Do you find that Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domain

23

SYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM on behalf of Trowbridge & Taylor when she

24

registered it?

25
26

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

27
28

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #20. If “NO”, proceed to question #19.

Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-6-

1

19.

Do

you

find

that

Kim

Taylor

transferred

her

ownership

in

2

SYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership

3

instead of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

4
5

____ Yes. _____ No.

6
7

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #20. If you entered “NO” please

8

proceed to question #26.

9
10

20.

Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in

11

SYNIDCATIONATTORNEYS.COM

12

partnership?

to

the

Trowbridge

Taylor

Sidoti

13
14

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

15
16

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #21. If you entered “NO” please

17

proceed to question #26.

18
19

21.

Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by

20

a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to

21

possess the SYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM domain?

22
23

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

24
25

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #22. If you entered “NO”, please

26

proceed to question #26.

27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-7-

1

22.

Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence

2

that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and

3

substantially

4

SYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM?

interfered

with

Trowbridge

Sidoti’s

domain,

5
6

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

7
8

If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #23. If you entered “NO”, then

9

proceed to question #26.

10
11

23.

Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

12
13

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

14
15

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #24. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

16

question #26.

17
18

24.

Do you find that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

19

harm to Plaintiff?

20
21

_____ Yes. _____ No.

22
23

If you entered “YES” , proceed to question #25. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

24

question #26.

25
26

25.

How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants’ conduct?

27
28

$____________________

Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-8-

1
2

Please proceed to question #26.

3
4

26.

Do you find Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domains:

5

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM, THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM and

6

THESYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM when she registered them?

7
8

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

9
10

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #28. If “NO”, proceed to question #27.

11
12

27.

Do you find that Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domains:

13

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM, THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM and

14

THESYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM on behalf of the Trowbridge & Taylor

15

partnership when she registered them?

16
17

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

18
19

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #29. If “NO”, proceed to question #28.

20
21

28.

Do

you

find

that

Kim

Taylor

transferred

her

ownership

in

22

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM, THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM and

23

THESYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership

24

instead of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

25
26

____ Yes. _____ No.

27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-9-

1

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #29. If you entered “NO” please

2

proceed to question #35.

3
4

29.

Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in

5

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM, THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM and

6

THESYNDICATIONLAYWERS.COM

7

partnership?

to

the

Trowbridge

Taylor

Sidoti

8
9

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

10
11

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #30. If you entered “NO” please

12

proceed to question #35.

13
14

30.

Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by

15

a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to

16

possess

17

THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM

18

THESYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM domains?

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM,
and

19
20

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

21
22

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #31. If you entered “NO”, please

23

proceed to question #35.

24
25

31.

26

that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and

27

Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence

substantially

interfered

with

Trowbridge

Sidoti’s

domains:

28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-10-

1

PRIVATEMONEYLAW.COM, THESYNDICATIONATTORNEYS.COM and

2

THESYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM?

3
4

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

5
6

If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #32. If you entered “NO”, then

7

proceed to question #35.

8

32.

Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

9
10

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

11
12

If you entered “YES” , proceed to question #33. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

13

question #35.

14
15

33.

Do you find that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

16

harm to Plaintiff?

17
18

_____ Yes. _____ No.

19
20

If you entered “YES” , proceed to question #34. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

21

question #35.

22
23

34.

How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants’ conduct?

24
25

$____________________

26
27

Please proceed to question #35.

28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-11-

1

35.

Do you find Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domains:

2

Regaattorney.com, Reg-A.com, Regulation-a.com and Regulationas.com when

3

Tim Ivey registered them Kim Taylor’s account?

4
5

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

6

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #37. If “NO”, proceed to question #36.

7
8

36.

Do you find that Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domains:

9

Regaattorney.com, Reg-A.com, Regulation-a.com and Regulationas.com on behalf

10

of the Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership when Tim Ivey registered them in

11

Kim Taylor’s account?

12
13

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

14
15

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #38. If “NO”, proceed to question #37.

16
17

37.

Do

you

find

that

Kim

Taylor

transferred

her

ownership

in

18

Regaattorney.com, Reg-A.com, Regulation-a.com and Regulationas.com to the

19

Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership instead of simply allowing the partnership to

20

use it?

21
22

____ Yes. _____ No.

23
24

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #38. If you entered “NO” please

25

proceed to question #43.

26
27
28

38.

Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by

a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to

Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-12-

1

possess Regaattorney.com, Reg-A.com, Regulation-a.com and Regulationas.com

2

domains?

3
4

__X__ Yes. _____ No.

5
6

If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #39. If you entered “NO”, please

7

proceed to question #43.

8
9

39.

Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence

10

that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and

11

substantially interfered with Trowbridge Sidoti’s domains: Regaattorney.com,

12

Reg-A.com, Regulation-a.com and Regulationas.com

13
14

__X__ Yes. ____ No.

15
16

If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #40. If you entered “NO”, then

17

proceed to question #43.

18
19

40.

Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

20
21

_____ Yes. __X__ No.

22
23

If you entered “YES” , proceed to question #41. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

24

question #43.

25
26
27

41.

Do you find that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

harm to Plaintiff?

28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-13-

1

_____ Yes. _____ No.

2
3

If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #42. If you entered “NO”, proceed to

4

question #43.

5
6

42.

How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants’ conduct?

7
8

$____________________

9
10

Please proceed to question #43.

11
12

43.

If you entered “No” or did not answer questions: 14, 23, 32, and 40 then sign

13

and date the verdict form. You have completed your deliberations.

14
15

If you entered “Yes” in any of questions: 14, 23, 32 or 40, then proceed to question

16

#44.

17
18

44.

If you entered any amounts in response to questions: 16, 25, 34 or 42 then

19

enter the sum of these amounts in the space below.

20
21

$7,800.00.

22
23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, pursuant to the

24

jury verdict entered on February 23, 2018 (ECF No. 108), and the Court’s entry of

25

partial summary judgment against Plaintiff’s first, second, and third claims for

26

relief on August 28, 2017 (ECF No. 62), that:

27
28

1. Plaintiff’s first claim for False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)),
second claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-14-

1

§ 17200, and third claim for violation of common law unfair competition are

2

dismissed with prejudice, as explained in the Court’s August 28, 2017,

3

Order. (ECF No. 62.)

4

2. Counterclaimant Kim Lisa Taylor’s claim for an accounting is dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to a settlement on the record during trial.

5
6

//

7

//

8

3. Defendants must pay Plaintiff $7,800.00 in damages, which may be offset

9
10

against the settlement funds, as set forth on the record at trial, plus postjudgment interest, as may be provided by law.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Date: March 6, 2018
Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Civil Case No. 8:16-cv-00771-ODW-SK
JUDGMENT
-15-