Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., et al v. Glamora By Sadia et al

Filing 82

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; AND SETTING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 11/12/2015 09:00 AM. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/4/2015. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A.,, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-05421-BLF

v.
GLAMORA BY SADIA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER; AND
SETTING HEARING ON ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

12
13

Plaintiffs Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., Celine, S.A., and Christian Dior, S.A. are French

14

fashion companies that manufacture and distribute luxury goods such as apparel, handbags, and

15

other accessories. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Sadia Barrameda (“Barrameda”), individually

16

and doing business as Defendant Glamora By Sadia (“Glamora”), sells counterfeit purses and

17

other goods that are represented to be manufactured by Plaintiffs. Defendant New Compendium

18

Corporation, a corporation wholly owned and controlled by Barrameda, allegedly is used to pay

19

the expenses of Barrameda and Glamora and to facilitate the sales of counterfeit goods.

20

On October 26, 2015, the judge then-assigned to this case, the Honorable Samuel Conti,

21

issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) freezing Defendants’ real property, financial

22

accounts, and assets, and issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why a preliminary injunction

23

should not issue. See TRO, ECF 76. Judge Conti set the hearing on the OSC re preliminary

24

injunction for November 9, 2015, fourteen days after issuance of the TRO.

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the TRO issued in this case “expires at the

26

time after entry – not to exceed 14 days – that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for

27

good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.” Fed.

28

R. Civ. P. 65(b). “The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.” Id.

1

On November 3, 2015, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Because of the

2

many other matters on the Court’s calendar, including a one-month criminal trial that commenced

3

on October 30, 2015, the Court cannot hear this case on or before the date set by Judge Conti,

4

which is the fourteenth day after issuance of the TRO. The Court has approved the parties’

5

stipulation allowing release of certain of Defendants’ funds to ensure that necessary personal and

6

business expenses are paid, which will significantly lessen the harm to Defendants pending

7

consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

(1)

The TRO is EXTENDED for an additional fourteen days, through November 23,

2015, in order to give the Court adequate time to become familiar with the file, conduct a hearing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

on the OSC re preliminary injunction, and issue a reasoned decision; and

12
13

(2)

The parties SHALL APPEAR for a hearing on the OSC re preliminary injunction

before the undersigned judge at 9:00 a.m. on November 12, 2015.

14
15
16
17

Dated: November 4, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2