Sream, Inc. v. Tiger Brothers Food Mart, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER: Plaintiff shall show cause by 6/24/2019 why this suit should not be dismissed for improper venue as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 6/13/2019. (SWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION

SREAM,INC.

VERSUS
NO.: 17-00657-BAJ-RLB

TIGER BROTHERS FOOD MART,
INC.
ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 21) and the

Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 22) filed by Plaintiff Sream, Inc., in which
Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Defendant Tiger Brothers Food Mart, Inc. 1
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U .S.C. § 1331. For the reasons articulated herein, the
Court defers ruling on both motions pending the submission of a supplemental brief
by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is a California corporation that possesses exclusive license in the
Unite d States to use the trademark "RooR." (Doc. 1 at p. 2). RooR is recognized for its
ornate glass products including borosilicate jointed-glass water pipes, parts, and
accessories. (Doc. 21 at p. 2). Plaintiff contends Defendant engaged in the unlawful
manufacture, retail sale, and/or wholesale sale of counterfeit RooR branded water
pipes and related parts. (Doc. 1 at p. 2).
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on September 20, 2017, asserting violations of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The Clerk of Court entered a default on June 14, 2018

1

Both motions are identical except Doc. 22 contains evidence in support of Plaintiffs Motion.

1

because Defendant failed to file an answer or motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12.

(Doc. 19).

Plaintiff then filed the pending Motions for Default

Judgment.
The Court notes a discrepancy in Plaintiffs pleadings and evidence regarding
where Defendant is incorporated and where the impact of Defendant's alleged
infringement was felt. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that Defendant is a Louisiana
corporation, a nd that a substantial part of the events giving rise to its claim occurred
in this district. However, Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment state that
Defendant is a Florida Corporation and Plaintiff bases its damages calculation on its
loss of profits in Florida. (Doc. 22 at p. 4; Doc. 22-2 at p. 1; Doc. 22-3 at p. 1). Given
Plaintiffs inconsistent statements and evidence about where the events in this
matter occurred, the Court requires clarification before it is able to address Plaintiffs
Motions for Default Judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause within ten days of the date of this
order why this suit should not be dismissed for improper venue. McClintock v. School

Bd. East Feliciana Parish, 299 Fed. Appx. 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2008) ("If a district court

2

where suit is filed determines that venue is improper, it has discretion to either
dismiss the suit, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district
or division in which it could have been brought").

Baton Rouge , Louisiana, this (O ~ay of June, 2019.

JUDGE BRIAN~- J CKSON
UNITED STAT
!STRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3