Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. v. POBRA Enterprises, LLC et al
Filing
72
ORDER re 71 Stipulation filed by Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. The Stipulated Entry of Permanent Injunction 71 is GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. The Court will enter the permanent injunction under separate cover. The Clerk is directed to terminate John Doe Corporations, John Doe Entities, and John Does 1-50 as party-Defendants. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/21/2017. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-792-FtM-38MRM
POBRA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
NAPLES POBRA LLC, JOHN
BRANNELLY, MICHAEL A. POKA,
ANDREA BASILE,
Defendants, CounterPlaintiffs,
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS,
JOHN DOE ENTITIES and JOHN
DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Stipulated Entry of Permanent
Injunction (Doc. 71) filed on July 19, 2017. This is a trademark infringement case wherein
the parties successfully mediated all claims and counterclaims, leading to an agreed upon
permanent injunction, the terms of which are outlined in Doc. 71. Federal Rule of Civil
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to
some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order. The Rule
reads in pertinent part:
Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1, 23.2 and 66 and any applicable
federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a
court order by filing:
A notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either
an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
A stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
appeared.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).
In this instance, the Parties inform the Court that the case has been settled and
that they agree to a permanent injunction. As such, the Court construes the stipulation
signed by all parties as one for dismissal and entry of judgment and a permanent
injunction.2 The Court will enter the permanent injunction under separate cover. Although
the parties request the Court to maintain jurisdiction over the matter, the Court elects not
to do so. Although Plaintiff does not address whether it will continue to pursue claims
against Defendants John Doe Corporations, John Doe Entities, and John Does 1-50, the
Court will dismiss these Defendants and direct the Clerk to terminate them from this
matter as the John Doe Defendants have not been served with process, nor identified,
and the time for service has expired.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Stipulated Entry of Permanent Injunction (Doc. 71) is GRANTED. This
case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
Indeed, the last paragraph of the stipulation states that it is a “Stipulated Final Judgment and
Permanent Injunction.”
2
2
accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. The Court will enter the
permanent injunction under separate cover.
(2) The Clerk is directed to terminate John Doe Corporations, John Doe Entities,
and John Does 1-50 as party-Defendants.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 21st day of July, 2017.
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
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?