Burgoyne v. Kronenberger et al

Filing 72

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 5/30/2012. Motions terminated: 39 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM FURTHER UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING USE OF PLAINTIFF'S NAME filed by Henry M. Burgoyne, III.(kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HENRY M. BURGOYNE III,

No. C-11-06376 EDL

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11
v.
12
KARL M. KRONENBERGER,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/

On May 1, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
At the hearing, the parties reached a resolution of their dispute, which they placed on the record.
The parties agreed to further reduce their resolution to writing no later than May 9, 2012, and to
inform the Court if they were unable to do so.
On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed an unauthorized ten-page supplemental brief on the merits
along with a lengthy declaration in which Plaintiff stated, among other things, that the parties could
not resolve their dispute, and asked the Court to rule on the motion for preliminary injunction. On
May 15, 2012, Defendant filed an objection to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief. The Court declines to
consider Plaintiff’s unauthorized supplemental brief.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs filed in connection with the motion for
preliminary injunction, and has considered the parties’ arguments at the hearing and their stipulation
that was placed on the record. Accordingly, the Court issues the following Order which reflects the
parties’ agreement on the record at the hearing and which resolves Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction: (1) no later than June 12, 2012, Defendants shall file and serve a declaration(s) detailing
the steps taken since Plaintiff’s termination through the date of the hearing by Defendants to delete

1

references to Plaintiff’s name in connection with Defendants’ internet advertising; (2) Defendants

2

shall forthwith take all reasonable steps to remove any misleading current association between

3

Plaintiff’s name and Defendant’s name, including contacting the websites raised in connection with

4

the motion and reply (e.g., martindale.com, lawyers.com, and attorneys.com) to find out why the

5

Kronenberger Burgoyne reference remained on the website, and to request that the website remove

6

Plaintiff’s name in association with Defendants’ from those websites, including from the source

7

code, and to provide a declaration(s) no later than June 29, 2012 to Plaintiff detailing the steps

8

Defendant took in an effort to delete Plaintiff’s name in association with Defendants’ from those

9

websites, and the response from the websites; (3) if, in the future, Defendants and/or Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

become aware of any of Defendants’ advertising that contains Plaintiff’s name in association with

11

Defendants, the party that discovered the advertising shall contact the opposing party within twenty-

12

four hours or as soon as practical thereafter, and Defendant shall take immediate action to address

13

the advertising and provide detailed information to Plaintiff regarding the steps taken to delete the

14

reference to Plaintiff’s name from that advertising; and (4) Defendant shall not engage in future

15

advertising using Plaintiff’s name.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 30, 2012
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2