VERRAGIO, LTD. v. MALAKAN DIAMOND CO.

No. 1:16-cv-01647-DAD-SKO.

VERRAGIO, LTD., Plaintiff, v. MALAKAN DIAMOND CO., Defendant. MALAKAN DIAMOND CO., Counterclaimant, v. VERRAGIO, LTD., Counter-defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Cause: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Verragio, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Howard Alan Kroll , Tucker Ellis Llp.

Malakan Diamond Co., Defendant, represented by Hadi Ty Kharazi , Yarra, Kharazi & Clason.

Verragio, Ltd., Cross Defendant, represented by Howard Alan Kroll , Tucker Ellis Llp.

Malakan Diamond Co., Cross Claimant, represented by Hadi Ty Kharazi , Yarra, Kharazi & Clason.

AE Jewelers of Appleton, LLC, Cross Defendant, Pro Se.

Malakan Diamond Co., Counter Claimant, represented by Hadi Ty Kharazi , Yarra, Kharazi & Clason.

Verragio, Ltd., Counter Defendant, represented by Howard Alan Kroll , Tucker Ellis Llp.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 37)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff filed this suit on October 31, 2016, alleging various copyright and trademark infringement claims against defendant Malakan Diamond Co. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 6, 2017, defendant Malakan Diamond filed an answer and counterclaims against plaintiff, and cross-claims against AE Jewelers, Inc., AE Jewelers of Appleton, LLC, Harold Jaffee Jewelry, Inc., and Jensen Jewelers of Idaho, LLC. (Doc. No. 10.) Several of those cross-defendants were subsequently dismissed from the suit by Malakan Diamond on March 29, 2017. (Doc. No. 34.)

On April 11, 2017, defendant/counterclaimant Malakan Diamond filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claims against it. (Doc. No. 37.) This motion for summary judgment was opposed by plaintiff on May 2, 2017, both on the merits and because discovery has not yet commenced in this action. (Doc. No. 41.) Additionally, plaintiff sought leave under Rule 56(d) to conduct discovery relevant to this case prior to the court addressing defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Id.)

Because no discovery has yet been conducted in this action, defendant Malakan Diamond's summary judgment motion is denied as premature and plaintiff's request for leave to conduct discovery is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The denial of the motion for summary judgment is without prejudice to defendant/counterclaimant refiling that motion following the exchange of sufficient discovery between the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases