Vallavista Corporation v. Vera Bradley Designs, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER DECLINING TO RELATE CASES. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 12, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VALLAVISTA CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, et al., Defendants. VALLAVISTA CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. VERA BRADLEY DESIGNS, INC., an Indiana corporation, DIZENGOFF HANDBAGS, INC., a New York corporation, and TONY PEROTTI ITALY (USA) LLC, Defendants. / / No. C 07-05360 WHA No. C 10-00120 JW FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

ORDER DECLINING TO RELATE CASES

Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, actions are related when two requirements are met: (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event, and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Here, it is obvious that the plaintiff is identical in both actions. Also true is the fact that the protected mark -- the "TAXI WALLET" trademark -- asserted in the new action was also asserted in the earlier litigation. Beyond these similarities, however, the disputes are hardly related under the Civil Local Rules. First, the accused defendants and products in the new action are different. In a trademark infringement dispute, even minor differences between accused products can sway the merits of an infringement claim. Second, the earlier action has long since been dismissed pursuant to stipulation. As such, there is no risk of any duplication of labor. All the work in the new case will have to be done, and different witnesses, products, and defendants are now being targeted by plaintiff Vallavista Corporation. In sum, while the trademark at issue may be the same, that alone does not render these cases related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). For the reasons explained above, the administrative motion to relate these cases is DENIED.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2