Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al v. Blangiardo et al

Filing 36

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered re 34 Stipulation, filed by Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Communications Company L.P. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and SPRINT *
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., *
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
*
*
JAMESON BLANGIARDO individually *
and d/b/a MODERN NOBILITY and d/b/a *
JECTRONICS and 1620 ELECTRONICS *
CORP.,
*
*
Defendants.
*

Civil Action No. 14-cv-10238-IT

ORDER
October 22, 2014
TALWANI, D.J.
The parties in this case seek judicial approval of a draft stipulated Final Judgment and
Permanent Injunction Against Defendants 1620 Electronics and Jameson Blangiardo individually
and d/b/a Jectronics and d/b/a/ Modern Nobility [#34-1].
The proposed final judgment includes legal conclusions regarding Plaintiffs’ trademark
rights and Plaintiffs’ contractual rights as to “each of its customers.” Moreover, it permanently
enjoins Defendants from engaging in certain behaviors and retains the court’s jurisdiction to
enforce this injunction indefinitely.
Prior to submitting the draft stipulated final judgment, Defendant Jameson Blangiardo
had answered the Plaintiffs’ original complaint, denying each count alleged against him.1 The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, and Defendants had not yet responded to

1

See Answer Def. Jameson Blangiardo [#13].

the Amended Complaint.2 Given the record’s current state of development, the court has no
ability to independently assess the merits of the conclusions set forth in the proposed final
judgment. Accordingly, the court is wary of permanently retaining jurisdiction to monitor
Defendants’ compliance with the relief ordered therein. See Iverson v. Braintree Prop. Assocs.,
L.P., No. 04cv12079-NG, 2008 WL 552652, *5-6 (D. Mass. Feb. 26, 2008) (refusing to retain
jurisdiction over a private settlement agreement where the court had “not been asked to rule on
the bona fides of the agreement, and . . . [had] no basis on which to do so”); see also United
States v. Mass. Water Res. Authority, 256 F.3d 36, 50 n.15 (1st Cir. 2001) (listing prerequisites
for the issuance of a permanent injunction, including that “the plaintiff has demonstrated actual
success on the merits of its claims”).
The court hereby orders that the parties shall, by November 18, 2014, submit a brief
identifying the court’s legal authority to enter findings and retain jurisdiction to monitor a
permanent injunction predicated on legal and factual conclusions that the court has not
independently assessed. In the alternative, the parties may submit a modified stipulated final
judgment or notification of a private settlement agreement that does not require the court’s
continuing jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 22, 2014

2

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

See Pl.s’ Am. Compl. Damages & Injunctive Relief [#31].
2