Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Spirit of Utah Wilderness, Inc.

Filing 284

ORDER: Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate this action. As indicated in the Consent Decree (ECF No. 282), the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action until March 14, 2028, for the purposes of enforcing the terms of the Consent Decree. Case Stay Lifted. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/16/2023) (ate)

Case 7:10-cv-01136-NSR Document 284 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
:
WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
-against:
SPIRIT OF UTAH WILDERNESS, INC.,
:
d/b/a GREAT SALT LAKEKEEPER, or
:
GREAT SALT LAKE WATER KEEPERS,
:
Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:

3/16/2023

10-cv-1136 (NSR)
ORDER

Plaintiff Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on February 11,
2010 asserting claims against Defendant Spirit of Utah Wilderness, Inc. (“SUW” or “Defendant”)
and its officers for, inter alia, trademark infringement. On May 8, 2015, the Court issued a Default
Judgment and Order (ECF No. 100), after the Court found that Defendant had infringed upon
Plaintiff’s marks. On January 22, 2020, the Court issued an order of imprisonment (ECF No. 171)
following Jeffrey Salt’s (“Mr. Salt”) failure to comply with the Court’s contempt orders (ECF No.
135, 160, 171). Numerous extensions on the time to purge were provided. (See ECF Nos. 183,
187, 189, 194, 201, 205, 209, 213, 218, 225, 227, 231, 234, & 239. On January 20, 2023, the Court
issued and delivered an amended arrest warrant directing the U.S. Marshals Service in the District
of Utah, where Mr. Salt resided, to effectuate the warrant. Mr. Salt was arrested on February 2,
2023 and remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. On February 22, 2023, following
a telephonic status conference with counsel for both parties, the Court issued an order vacating the
arrest warrant and directing Mr. Salt’s release from custody. (See ECF No. 277, “Order of
Release”.) The Court issued the “Order of Release” upon receiving Mr. Salt’s written note, signed
and dated by him, that he agreed to terms proposed by Plaintiff to purge himself from his contempt.

Case 7:10-cv-01136-NSR Document 284 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 2

(See id.) In the Order of Release, the Court directed the parties to file a formal consent order
reflecting Mr. Salt’s agreement to purge, as indicated thereto, within 7 days of Mr. Salt’s release
from custody. (See id.)
The Court held a telephonic conference on March 9, 2023 to discuss certain terms of the
proposed Consent Decree. On March 14, 2023, the parties executed the Consent Decree, and
Plaintiff entered it on the docket. (ECF No. 281.) As part of the Consent Decree, Mr. Salt agreed
to (i) re-affirm the injunctive relief previously granted by the Court and agreed to avoid interfering
with Waterkeeper and its member/affiliate organizations’ business or activities going forward; (ii)
pay fines imposed by the Court or file a detailed financial affidavit demonstrating his alleged
inability to pay the fines within 45 days of entry of the Consent Decree; and (iii) vest the Court
with ongoing jurisdiction for five years following the date of entry of the Consent Decree in order
to enforce his obligations to purge his contempt. (Id. at ¶¶ 1–13.) The Court So-Ordered the
Consent Decree that same day. (ECF No. 282.)
The substantive matters in this action have been resolved, and the only issue that remains
is Mr. Salt’s purging of his contempt pursuant to the Consent Decree. 1
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate this action. As indicated
in the Consent Decree (ECF No. 282), the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action until March
14, 2028, for the purposes of enforcing the terms of the Consent Decree.
Dated: March 16, 2023
White Plains, NY

The Court notes that the parties agreed that the Consent Decree does not resolve Plaintiff’s judgment for
attorneys’ fees and costs. (See ECF No. 282.) On October 19, 2016, following the Court’s adoption of the report and
recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs (ECF No. 130), the Clerk of Court entered judgment
for Plaintiff for $277,903.39 in attorneys' fees and costs. (ECF No. 131.)

1

2