Rene Schonefeld Industrie-En Handelsonderneming BV et al v. Jamil et al
ORDER granting 22 plaintiff's Motion to Compel. See attached order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 10/12/12. (Constantine, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RENE SCHONEFELD INDUSTRIE-EN
HANDELSONDERNEMING BV, and
THREE KINGS PRODUCTS, LLC,
ARFAN JAMIL, MUHAMMAD NADEEM
and SANOVIA NADEEM,
CASE NO. 3:11cv1450(RNC)
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
Handelsonderneming B.V. and Three Kings Products, LLC, bring this
action against the defendants, Arfan Jamil, Muhammad Nadeem and
trademark for Three Kings charcoal in violation of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a).
The defendants are proceeding pro
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to compel.
The motion is granted as set forth below.
On March 12, 2012, the pro se defendants, who are California
residents, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court
lacks personal jurisdiction and that venue is improper. (Doc. #18.)
In the alternative, the defendants seek an order transferring the
case to the Central District of California.
That motion is
In the interim, the plaintiffs served the
It appears that Arfan Jamil and Muhammad Nadeem are the same
document production requests and a set of requests for admission.
The plaintiffs also issued notices for the defendants' depositions.
In response to the plaintiffs' Requests for Admission, the
Defendants object to this Request for Admission under
FRCP 36 on the grounds that defendants have only made a
special appearance and contend that engaging in
discovery could be interpreted as a general appearance
subjecting the defendants to the jurisdiction of the
(Doc. #22, Ex. D.)
In response to the plaintiffs' Notices of Deposition, the
[Defendants] object to Notice of Deposition pursuant to
Rule 45 on the grounds that the court has not obtained
depositions is defective and the attempts to depose these
parties is improper.
(Doc. #22, Ex. E.)
The defendants did not respond at all to the plaintiffs'
requests for production.3
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 long ago abolished the
distinction between general and special appearances." Swanson v.
City of Hammond, Ind., 411 Fed. App'x 913, 915 (7th Cir.
2011)(citing cases). See Grammenos v. Lemos, 457 F.2d 1067, 1070
(2d Cir. 1972)("The need to file a special appearance in order to
object to jurisdiction or venue has vanished. A party can file a
general appearance and object to personal jurisdiction or venue at
any time before the answer is filed or in the answer.")
The plaintiffs state that a substantial number of the
outstanding written discovery requests are related to the issue of
The defendants have neither moved for a protective order nor
requested a stay.
They simply have refused to respond to the
plaintiffs' discovery requests. As a result, the plaintiffs filed
the instant motion to compel.
The defendants have not filed a
response of any kind to the plaintiffs' motion.
On August 9, 2012, the undersigned issued an order scheduling
a telephonic hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to compel to be held
on September 13, 2012.
(Doc. #26.) The hearing did not go forward
because, despite ample notice, defendant Sanovia Nadeem was not on
the conference call as required.
Defendants are advised that a
court order is meant to be followed.
A party who flouts the
court's order does so at his own peril. Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin
Publishing, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 73 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Agiwal
v. Mid Island Mortgage Corp. 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009)
("'[A]ll litigants . . . have an obligation to comply with court
orders,' and failure to comply may result in sanctions. . . .") The
court does not countenance the defendants' conduct.
this juncture, the court declines to imposes sanctions.
Motion to compel
The defendants' refusal to respond to discovery is not wellfounded. Contrary to the defendants' position - that they need not
respond to discovery or otherwise participate in the litigation
until the court rules on their motion to dismiss it is settled law that a defendant who has properly
objected to a lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer
or motion to dismiss may thereafter fully participate in
the action without waiving the objection. Michelson v.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 709 F. Supp.
1279, 1282 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)(no waiver of personal
jurisdiction where defendants "promptly challenged the
court's jurisdiction and their participation in case
followed their assertion of that defense").
See Donk v. Miller, No. 99 CIV 3775(KMW)(FM), 2000 WL 218400, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2000).
The plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted in part and denied
in part. The plaintiffs' request that their requests for admission
be deemed admitted is denied. Their request that the defendants be
compelled to respond to the propounded discovery and appear for
their depositions is granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Defendants shall serve the plaintiffs with responses to
the discovery requests by November 30, 2012.
defendants shall appear at such re-noticed depositions.
The defendants are cautioned that failure to comply with the
court's discovery orders may result in the imposition of sanctions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 12th day of October,
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?