Vineyard Vines, LLC v. Macbeth Collection, LLC
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE and ORDER. See attached Memorandum and Order for details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/17/2017. (Kaczmarek, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VINEYARD VINES, LLC
MACBETH COLLECTION, LLC,
Civ. No. 3:14cv01096(SALM)
February 17, 2017
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE AND ORDER
On February 16, 2017, the Court held an in-person status
conference regarding plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Enforcing the
Court’s Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment on Consent. [Doc.
#77]. Attorney Todd S. Sharinn appeared for the plaintiff Vineyard
Vines, LLC (“plaintiff”). Attorney Timothy P. Frawley appeared for
defendants Macbeth Collection, LLC; Macbeth Collection by Margaret
Josephs, LLC; Macbeth Designs LLC; and Margaret Josephs. Defendant
Margaret Josephs was also present, as was Alan Halperin, a
bankruptcy attorney representing Vineyard Vines as a creditor in a
At the February 16, 2017, conference, the parties discussed a
number of issues related to the enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement and the Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment on
Consent (Doc. #70), including: Defendants’ failure to abide by the
payment schedule in the Final Judgment; continued instances of
apparent infringement; liquidated damages; and attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff’s request for the Court to impose liquidated damages was
taken under advisement. Plaintiff also made an application for
attorney’s fees associated with the enforcement of the Final
Judgment and Settlement Agreement. While the Court indicated that
the award of some attorney’s fees is appropriate, a determination
of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded will be reserved
until the resolution of the instant dispute. The Court reminded
defendant Margaret Josephs that she remains personally liable for
the outstanding Judgment, notwithstanding any bankruptcy
proceedings for corporate defendants.
The defendants’ ongoing duty to comply with the Permanent
Injunction was also discussed. Plaintiff contends that infringing
products continue to be sold by third parties, and that defendant
Margaret Josephs has not taken appropriate action to stop the
distribution and sale of these products. Accordingly, defendant
Margaret Josephs shall immediately make a diligent and concerted
effort to stop third party vendors from importing, exporting,
shipping, delivering, holding for sale, offering for sale,
selling, distributing, returning, transferring and/or otherwise
moving or disposing of in any manner any infringing products. See
Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment on Consent, Doc. #70 at 3.
On or before March 3, 2017, defendant Margaret Josephs shall file
an affidavit detailing her efforts to enforce the Permanent
Injunction, including the steps taken to search for and contact
any and all retailers, wholesalers or others violating the
Permanent Injunction, and the steps taken to halt any violations
of the Permanent Injunction. Defendant Josephs shall provide a
copy of the Permanent Injunction to any third-party vendor that is
identified during her search, and shall inform said vendors that
any infringing products in their possession must be destroyed.
Defendant Josephs shall copy plaintiff’s counsel on any and all
correspondence to the third-party vendors, and shall forward any
responses received to plaintiff’s counsel as well.
The parties shall file a copy of the Settlement Agreement on
the docket forthwith. If they wish to file it under seal, they
should do so, accompanied by a motion to seal.
This is not a Recommended Ruling. The parties consented to
proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge on May 26, 2015,
[Doc. #65], with any appeal to be made directly to the Court of
Appeals. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)-(c).
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 17th day of
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
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?