Raza Obrera, Inc. v. Guerrero et al > Documents

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kevin Viau.
Defendant's Attorney: Fulvio Francisco Cajina.

Further Case Management Conference set for 7/15/2021 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. Case Management Statement due by 7/8/2021. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lb

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup:https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Further Case Management Conference set for 4/29/2021 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. Case Management Statement due by 4/22/2021. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kevin Viau.
Defendant's Attorney: Fulvio Cajina.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lb

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup:https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Further Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 12/5/2019.

Plaintiff's Attorney: Leila Sockolov.
Defendant Attorney: No Appearance.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/7/2019)

The plaintiff moves to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim alleging breach of contract based on the plaintiff's allegedly withholding consent to the defendants' new logo. (ECF No. 18.) The defendants oppose the motion, contending that the counterclaim adequately gives notice of its theory of breach (unreasonable withholding of approval of the new logo) and also seeking leave to amend to add new facts about the existing claim and new claims asserting trademark infringement. (ECF No. 22 at 2, 4-6.) Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the defendants could have amended as of right within 21 days, and the opposition seeking leave to amend was timely filed within that 21 days. Leave to amend is in any event given freely "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This leave policy is applied with "extreme liberality." See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying the five-factor test). Under the circumstances, and given the defendants' request to add new claims, the court dismisses the counterclaim with leave to amend. The defendants must file an amended counter-complaint within 21 days.

Now that the court has reviewed the file, the court thinks that the case would benefit from a case-management conference now. The court advances the initial case-management conference to October 31, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. (which was the date for the motions hearing). If the parties want, they can defer the full Rule 16 initial-case-management statement, but the court asks them to confer and at least discuss whether a settlement conference might help the parties address their dispute. The parties must file a joint statement by Friday, October 25, 2019 at noon (a day later than the ordinary deadline for filing a case-management statement). If October 31, 2019 is too soon, the parties may stipulate to continue the case-management conference one week to November 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. In turn, that would change the due date for the case-management statement to October 31, 2019.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 10/23/2019)

In the attached order, the court asks the parties' views about severing the defaulting defendants, who would be assigned to a new and related case (also assigned to the undersigned) that would proceed on a parallel track with the case against the appearing defendants. This would allow the court to address the pending motion. No new filing fee would be required. The court also would retain jurisdiction over the defaulting defendants even if they do not appear, either directly (if there is a dismissal) or by way of a report and recommendation (for a default-judgment motion) that would be reviewed by a district judge. The court asks the parties to confer and file a joint update by October 22, 2019 (if possible) with their respective positions about severance or reassignment.

(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 10/19/2019)

The court thanks the plaintiff for its August 16 update about service on Cruz Frias (see ECF No. 34), grants the plaintiff additional time to effect service, and (given the pending motion) asks the plaintiff for a short further update by September 12 at noon.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/30/2019)