Philip Morris USA Inc v. Silver View Supermarket et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Maxine M. Chesney denying 413plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for temporary restraining order, without prejudice to plaintiff's filing an application in compliance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1116(d). If plaintiff elects to forgo its request for a seizure order, plaintiff may so advise the Court, and the Court will issue the requested temporary restraining order with modification. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2006)

Download PDF
Philip Morris USA Inc v. Silver View Supermarket et al Doc. 15 Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Plaintiff, v. SILVER VIEW SUPERMARKET, et al., Defendants / No. C-06-0701 MMC ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff Philip Morris USA Inc.'s ex parte application, filed January 31, 2006, for a temporary restraining order against defendant Silver View Supermarket ("Silver View"), by which application plaintiff seeks to enjoin Silver View from purchasing or selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes. In an order filed February 1, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff to file supplemental briefing on the following issues: (1) whether Silver View operated the supermarket at which plaintiff has purchased counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes; and (2) whether the Court may issue an order permitting plaintiff to inspect Silver View's inventory and to seize and retain control of any counterfeit cigarettes found in Silver View's inventory. Having reviewed plaintiff's supplemental briefing, the Court finds plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that Silver View operated the supermarket at which the counterfeit cigarettes were purchased. Plaintiff has not demonstrated, however, that it is entitled to the requested seizure order absent compliance with the requirements of Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 U.S.C. 1116(d). Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's application, without prejudice to plaintiff's filing an application in compliance with the requirements of 1116(d). If plaintiff elects to forgo its request for a seizure order, plaintiff may so advise the Court, and the Court will issue the requested temporary restraining order with appropriate modification in accordance with the above findings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 3, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 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?