LUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC. v. LEETRONICS CORPORATION et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF 3/26/24 THAT FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED IN THE OPINION ISSUED THIS DATE, IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 9) IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AGIANST DEFENDANTS LEETRONICS AND Y ADID ON COUNTS I, II, III AND V OF THE COMPLAINT. ETC. PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING TO THIS COURT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 8, 2024, AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THE REMAINING JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, EFFECTUATE SERVICE, OR STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO RESPOND, THIS COURT WILL DISMISS THE REMAINING JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS. ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE: JOSEPH F. LEESON JR., ON 3/26/24. 3/27/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (DT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
LUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC.,
A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORTATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

LEETRONICS CORPORATION, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION, ELIRAN YADID, A NATURAL
PERSON, & JOHN DOES 1-10, INDIVIDUALLY
OR AS CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS ENTITIES,
Defendants.
__________________________________________

No.

5:23-cv-3318

ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of the entry of default of
Defendants Leetronics and Yadid on September 28, 2023, for failure to appear, plead or
otherwise defend, ECF No. 8, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 9, the affidavits
filed, ECF Nos. 6 & 11, and for the reasons expressed in the Opinion issued this date, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED.
2. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendants Leetronics and Yadid
on Counts I, II, III, and V of the Complaint.
3. Yadid, Leetronics, and Leetronics’ employees, agents, officers, representatives, directors,
attorneys, successors, affiliates, assigns, other entities owned or controlled by Defendant

1
032624

Leetronics, and all of those in active concert and participation with Defendants (the
“Enjoined Parties”) are adjudged in default and permanently enjoined as follows:
a. The Enjoined Parties are prohibited from all future activity infringing on Lutron’s
trademarks.
b. The Enjoined Parties are prohibited from distributing, circulating, selling, offering
to sell, advertising, promoting, or displaying, via the internet or otherwise, any
Lutron products or products bearing Lutron’s trademarks.
c. The Enjoined Parties must take all actions to remove Lutron’s trademarks and any
reference to Lutron products from any website operated by or associated with the
Enjoined Parties, including but not limited to removing all Lutron products and
trademarks from any Amazon storefront operated by or associated with the
Enjoined Parties, such as the Amazon storefront with Merchant ID
A1Q339Q3I0J2ZN, currently known as “Fannys Gifts.”
d. The Enjoined parties are directed to return or destroy any infringing Lutron
products currently in their possession, custody, or control.
4. Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE in writing to this Court on or before April 8,
2024, as to why this Court should not dismiss the remaining John Doe defendants for
Plaintiff’s failure to identity, effectuate service,1 or state a claim against these defendants.
If Plaintiff fails to respond, this Court will dismiss the remaining John Doe defendants

When an unnamed defendant is not identified or served “within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
1

2
032624

and enter final judgment disposing of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b).2

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

Rule 54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief—
whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are
involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all,
claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.
Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of
the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating
all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See also Wyndham
Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. Welcome Hotel Grp., LLC, No. 17-04065, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
223992, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2020) (internal citation omitted) (“To order final judgment, all of
Plaintiff’s claims must be ‘either resolved or withdrawn.’”).
2

3
032624