Lopez v. Nike, Inc. et al

Filing 119

CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 118 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. in favor of Biergarten Holdings Corp., Bloomingdale's, Inc., Drjay's.com, Inc., G&S Sporting Goods, LLC, Nordstrom, Inc., Paragon Sports, LLC, Urban Outfitters, Inc. against Robert G. Lopez. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated February 16, 2021, this Court adopts the R&R in its entirety; Accordingly, Plaintiff's Lanham Act claims, and trademark infringement and unfair competition claims under New York law, are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as withdrawn. (See Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 62) at 8; R&R (Dkt. No. 111) at 3 n.2) Plaintiff's request for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied; This Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status i s denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:20-cv-00905-PGG-JLC Document 119 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT G. LOPEZ,
20 CIVIL 905 (PGG) (JLC)

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT

-againstNIKE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court's Order dated February 16, 2021, this Court adopts the R&R in its entirety;
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims, and trademark infringement and unfair competition
claims under New York law, are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s unjust
enrichment claim is dismissed as withdrawn. (See Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 62) at 8; R&R (Dkt. No. 111) at
3 n.2) Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied; This Court certifies
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he
seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

Dated: New York, New York
February 17, 2021
RUBY J. KRAJICK
_________________________
Clerk of Court
BY:
_________________________
Deputy Clerk