Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Russell Road shall provide security for this temporary restraining order by tendering $100 cash to the Clerk of the Court. Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to Russell Roads 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 5/13/2013. Russell Road shall file and serve its reply brief in support of its 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 5/17/2013. Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2013 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6A before Judge James C. Mahan. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 05/10/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Case 2:13-cv-00776-JCM-NJK Document 26-2 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BRUNO W. TARABICHI, CA State Bar No. 215129
[e-mail]
OWENS TARABICHI LLP
111 N. Market St., Suite 730
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 408.521.2203
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
PUOY K. PREMSRIRUT, State Bar No. 7141
[e-mail]
PUOY K. PREMSRIRUT, ESQ. INC.
520 S. Fourth Street, Second Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.385.1752
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

SOUTHERN DIVISION

14
15
16

RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND
BEVERAGE, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
owens tarabichi llp
Counselors At Law

vs.
MIKE GALAM, an individual; VICTOR
GALAM, an individual; JACQUELINE
GALAM BARNES, an individual;
CANICO CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
ABRAHAM ASSIL, an individual;
GEORGE ESHAGHIAN, an individual;
DJAVID HAKAKIAN, an individual;
MORRIS NEJATHAIM, an individual;
HAMED YAZDANPANAH, an
individual; SOLEIMAN NAZARIAN, an
individual; ISAAC JAVDANFAR, an
individual; KAMRAN SAMOOHA, an
individual, MEHRAN SADIGHPOUR, an
individual; WEST BEST CAPITAL
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SEFOX INVESTMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
OLYMPIC CAPITAL VENTURE, LLC, a

Case No. 2:13-CV-00776-JCM-NJK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANDING
T
PLAINTIFF RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND
BEVERAGE, LLC’S EMERGENCY
OPPOSITION TO AND REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
EXTENDING THE BRIEFING AND
HEARING SCHEDULE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
RENEWED REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE
OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER PENDING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Judge:

Hon. James C. Mahan

[PROPOSED] TRO

Case 2:13-cv-00776-JCM-NJK Document 26-2 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Delaware limited liability company; EL
MARINO, LLC, a California limited
liability company; KNOTTING HILL,
LLC, a California limited liability
company; SN & GE, LLC, a California
limited liability company; IJ
PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited
liability company; S DOUBLE, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
INDUSTRIAL ROAD 2440-2497, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; RHINO
BARE PROJECTS LLC, a California
limited liability company; RHINO BARE
PROJECTS 4824 LLC, a California limited
liability company; CRAZY HORSE TOO
GENTLEMEN’S CLUB LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company; and DOES 1 –
50, inclusive,
Defendants.

11
12
13

AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff Russell Road Food and Beverage,

14

LLC’s Emergency Opposition to and Request for Reconsideration of Order Extending the

15

Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Renewed

16

Reqeust for Issuance of a Temproary Restraining Order Pending Hearing on Motion for

17

Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED as follows.

18

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDER THAT

19

1.

Plaintiff Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC (“Russell Road”) is likely to

20

succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim. Russell Road has shown that it owns

21

common law and statutory trademark rights in the CRAZY HORSE III mark in connection with

22

its gentlemen’s club in the City of Las Vegas and State of Nevada and that such rights date back

23

to at least as early as September 4, 2009 when it opened its CRAZY HORSE III gentlemen’s

24

club. Russell Road has also shown that an analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s Sleekcraft factors weigh

25

in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. The Court also notes that Russell Road has

26

submitted substantial evidence of actual confusion in the marketplace, which is the best indicator

27

that a likelihood of confusion exists.

28
owens tarabichi llp
Counselors At Law

2

[PROPOSED] TRO

Case 2:13-cv-00776-JCM-NJK Document 26-2 Filed 05/10/13 Page 3 of 4

1

2.

Russell Road has shown that it is suffering and is likely to suffer irreparable harm

2

in the absence of a temporary restraining order. Such irreparable harm may be presumed by

3

Russell Road’s showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement

4

claim. However, Russell Road has made a separate and sufficient showing of irreparable harm

5

through its submission of evidence that (i) actual confusion has already occurred in the market;

6

(ii) it has suffered, and will continue to suffer, intangible harm to the goodwill of its CRAZY

7

HORSE III mark, (iii) it will be unable to control and maintain the reputation and perception of

8

its CRAZY HORSE III mark, (iv) it will be unable to obtain a reasonable return on its investment

9

of millions of dollars into its CRAZY HORSE III mark; and (v) its CRAZY HORSE III mark will

10

be tarnished by being associated with the negative reputation of the former Crazy Horse Too club

11

and its owners.

12

3.

The balance of equities tips in Russell Road’s favor. Russell Road has invested

13

millions of dollars into its mark and created substantial goodwill and consumer recognition in its

14

CRAZY HORSE III mark. In contrast, Defendants have just recently adopted the CRAZY

15

HORSE TOO mark and did so with full knowledge of Russell Road’s prior rights in the CRAZY

16

HORSE III mark. The damage to Russell Road if a temporary restraining order does not issue far

17

outweighs the alleged harm to Defendants of their duty to comply with the law.

18

4.

As in most trademark cases, a temporary restraining order serves the public

19

interest because it prevents confusion in the market. Here, actual confusion is already occurring

20

and a temporary restraining order would serve to the public’s interest by preventing further

21

confusion.

22

5.

A temporary restraining order would serve to preserve the status quo in this case

23

until the Court can hear and make a decision on Russell Road’s Motion for Preliminary

24

Injunction.

25

6.

A bond in the amount of $100 is appropriate because Defendants have just recently

26

started using the CRAZY HORSE TOO mark and have not yet opened their competing

27

gentlemen’s club, such that they will suffer no lost sales, and because Defendants adopted the

28

CRAZY HORSE TOO mark with full knowledge of Russell Road’s use and ownership of the

owens tarabichi llp
Counselors At Law

3

[PROPOSED] TRO

Case 2:13-cv-00776-JCM-NJK Document 26-2 Filed 05/10/13 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4

CRAZY HORSE III mark and position that Defendants’ use would constitute infringement.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pending a decision on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
1.

All named Defendants, including without limitation, all of their respective owners,

5

officers, managers, employees, agents, partners, and all other persons acting in concert or

6

participation with Defendants, are hereby temporarily restrained and enjoined from opening a

7

gentlemen’s club under the CRAZY HORSE TOO name or mark prior to June 1, 2013.

8

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT

9

1.

Upon the issuance of this Order, Russell Road shall provide security for this

10

temporary restraining order by tendering $100 cash to the Clerk of the Court pursuan to Local

11

Rule 67-1;

12
13
14
15
16

2.

Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to Russell Road’s Motion for

May 13
Preliminary Injunction by ____________ ___, 2013;

3.

Russell Road shall file and serve its reply brief in support of its Motion for

May 17
Preliminary Injunction no later than __________ ____, 2013; and

4.

The parties shall appear for hearing and oral argument on Russell Road’s Motion

17

May 22
6A
10:00 AM
for Preliminary Injunction on ____________ ____, 2013 at _____ __.m. in Courtroom _____, at

18

the Lloyd D. George Fedeal Courthouse, 333 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada.

19
20
21

May 10, 2013 at of May,
ENTERED this _________ day1:50 PM.2013.

22
HON. JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
owens tarabichi llp
Counselors At Law

4

[PROPOSED] TRO