Stark et al v. Diageo Chateau & Estate Wines Company

Filing 86

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Granting Motion for Clarification and Denying 83 Motion for Reconsideration. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

CHRISTIAN STARK et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

vs.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.: 12-CV-04385 YGR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

DIAGEO CHATEAU & ESTATE WINES
COMPANY,

12

Defendant.

13
14

Plaintiffs move for clarification and reconsideration1 of the Court’s Order entering a

15

preliminary injunction. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this

16

action, the Court hereby GRANTS Motion to the extent it requests Clarification of the Court’s

17

previous Order but DENIES Reconsideration of that Order.2
To comply with the preliminary injunction, Defendant has an obligation to ensure that its

18
19

distributors and retailers are not advertising, promoting, distributing, offering for sale or selling

20

Stark Raving wine in Sonoma County, California. If Stark Raving wine still is being sold in

21

Sonoma County, then Defendant has an obligation to ensure that Stark Wine is removed from the

22

retailers’ shelves.
The Court hereby sets this matter for a Compliance Hearing for Friday, January 4, 2013,

23
24

on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. Calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,

25

California, Courtroom 5.

26
1

27

The Court construes the Motion for Reconsideration as a Request for Leave to File a Motion for
Reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9.

28

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion
appropriate for decision without oral argument.

1

By no later than December 21, 2012, the Defendant shall file a one-page statement either:

2

(a) confirming that compliance is complete; or (b) setting forth an explanation for its failure to

3

comply.

4
5

If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will be
taken off calendar. Otherwise, personal appearance will be required.

6

This Order Terminates Docket Number 83.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Date: December 10, 2012

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2