Craters & Freighters v. Daisychain Enterprises et al

Filing 166

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 163 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIONS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

No. C 09-04531 CW
CRATERS & FREIGHTERS,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT SANCTIONS

v.
DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, dba
FREIGHT & CRATE; CATHY BENZ; and
FRED BENZ.
Defendants.
________________________________/

On May 22, 2014, the Court entered an order granting

13

Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions against Defendants Cathy

14

Benz and Fred Benz.

15

Plaintiff had submitted evidence of multiple infringing internet

16

search results for WrapitExpress and Defendants did not dispute

17

that the search results violate the permanent injunction.

18

Instead, Defendants argued that they were doing their best to

19

comply and were having a difficult time communicating with Google.

20

At the May 15 hearing regarding sanctions, Plaintiff agreed that

21

it would have its IT department provide Defendants with

22

instructions regarding how to remove the offending internet

23

advertisements.

24

In its May 22 order the Court noted that

The Court ordered Defendants to comply with the Permanent

25

Injunction and further ordered that if, at any time after May 21,

26

2014, Plaintiff produced evidence of infringing internet

27

advertisements, Defendants would be required to pay $1,000 per day

28

that such advertisements are found.

On May 28, 2014, Plaintiff

1

filed a motion for coercive sanctions based on advertisements it

2

discovered on the internet on May 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27.

3

Defendants’ response was due by June 11, 2014.

4

Defendants have not responded.

5
6

To date,

DISCUSSION
As noted above, at the May 15 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion

7

for sanctions, Plaintiff agreed that it would have its IT

8

department send Defendants instructions regarding how to take down

9

infringing internet advertisements.

In its motion Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

states it “immediately complied and served Defendants with such

11

instructions.”

12

mail the instructions to Defendants until May 22, 2014, one week

13

after the May 15 hearing, and one day after Defendants’ deadline

14

to remove the infringing advertisements.

15

Motion at 2.

However, Plaintiff did not e-file or

Nonetheless, Plaintiff presents evidence that certain

16

infringing advertisements were still available on the internet on

17

May 27, 2014, five days after Plaintiff e-filed and mailed

18

Defendants the instructions.1

19

www.yellowpages.com advertisement, which was one of the types of

20

advertisements that Plaintiff provided instructions for deleting.

21

Moreover, Plaintiff provides evidence of a www.freightnet.com

22

profile that includes the infringing title, “Wrapit Express

23

Freight Crate and Logistics.”

24

advertisement contains a clear link that says, “Is this your

25

company? - please login to edit your details.”

Among those advertisements was a

Schmitz Dec., Ex. A.

That

Id.

26
27
28

1

Defendant Fred Benz is a registered e-filer who would have
received a copy of the instructions on May 22.
2

1

Plaintiff provides no explanation for why it waited until the

2

day after the deadline for compliance to provide the instructions

3

for taking down the infringing advertisements.

4

Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for why it waited six

5

days after discovering the infringing advertisements to file its

6

motion or why it should be able to collect six days of coercive

7

sanctions because of that delay.

8

impose coercive sanctions for one day.

9

screen shots with supporting declarations for subsequent days if

Moreover,

Accordingly, the Court will
Plaintiff may submit

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the infringing advertisements were still accessible on the

11

internet after Plaintiff filed its motion.

12
13

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for

14

contempt sanctions is GRANTED.

15

this order, Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,000.

16

Within seven days of the date of

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 6/30/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3