99c Only Stores v. 99c Plus Discount Store et al

Filing 37

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 8/21/2009 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/14/09. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009)

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

Steven J. Nataupsky (State Bar No. 155,913) [e-mail] Frederick S. Berretta (State Bar No. 144,757) [e-mail] Boris Zelkind (State Bar No. 214,014) [e-mail] Marc T. Morley (State Bar No. 211,242) [e-mail] Jeremy R. Pierce (State Bar No. 246,961) [e-mail] Alan L. Kessler (State Bar No. 254,010) [e-mail] KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff 99¢ ONLY STORES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 99¢ ONLY STORES, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. 99¢ PLUS DISCOUNT STORE, a California company, ABDUL RAHMIN, an Individual, and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 07-cv-06395-CRB [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SANCTIONED Date: August 21, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 8 Before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer

[Proposed] Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and Sanctioned

Case No. 07-cv-06395-CRB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

This Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause why Defendants should not be held in Contempt of Court, all documents in support and in opposition to the Motion, and for good cause being shown, HEREBY ORDERS THAT: Defendants shall appear before this Court at 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, on the 21st day of August, 2009 at 10:00 AM of that day or as soon thereafter as Defendants can be heard why an order should not be made and entered herein: 1) 2) Holding Defendants in contempt of the Court's Judgment; Ordering Defendants to immediately remove all signage bearing the mark "99"

from all businesses or properties in their control or possession, and to notify the Court of compliance within 14 days of the Court's order; 3) In the event that Defendants fail to timely remove the signage, ordering the

United States Marshals to effect removal and destruction of every sign bearing the mark "99" at 585 Front Street, Suite A, Soledad, California 93960 at Defendants' expense; 4) Ordering Defendants to immediately pay to 99¢ the monetary portion of the

Judgment plus a reasonable rate of interest to be determined by the Court and to be assessed over the period between October 8, 2008, the date of receipt by Defendants of 99¢'s letter, and the date of payment of the Judgment; 5) Ordering Defendants to pay 99¢'s attorneys' fees and its other costs expended

while investigating and filing the present Motion; and 6) Ordering such other relief that is just and proper under the circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT ED

24 25 26 27 28
99CENTL.109L

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

Dated:

July 14, 2009

By:

[Proposed] Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court -1and Sanctioned

ER

N

D IS T IC T R

Case No. 07-cv-06395-CRB OF

A

C

LI

FO

harles Judge C

R. Brey

er

R NIA

Honorable SO O R. Breyer IT IS Charles U.S. District Court Judge

RDERE

D

RT U O

NO

RT

H