Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership v. Lake Tahoe Development Company, LLC, No. 2:2009cv01533 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/22/2010 recommending that plts' 19 motion for default be granted. Injunctive relief be granted as specified in plaintiffs' proposed judgment which is approved as to form and substance. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)

Download PDF

Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership v. Lake Tahoe Development Company, LLC Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 HEAVENLY VALLEY, LP, et al., 10 11 Plaintiffs, CIV. NO. S-09-1533 FCD GGH vs. 12 13 LAKE TAHOE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 15 16 Defendant. ___________________________/ Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against defendant Lake Tahoe 17 Development Company (“LTD”), filed April 15, 2010, was submitted on the record. Local Rule 18 78-230(h). Upon review of the motion and the supporting documents, and good cause appearing, 19 the court issues the following findings and recommendations. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On June 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint in this action against 22 defendant, alleging that defendant improperly and without authorization used the Heavenly 23 trademarks in the name “The Chateau at Heavenly Village,” and in the internet domain name 24 www.chateauheavenlyvillage.com in regard to a real estate project entered into under a 25 Condominium Marketing License Agreement between defendant LTD and Plaintiff RockResorts, 26 a subsidiary of Vail Resorts, Inc., of which Heavenly Valley LP is also a subsidiary. Claims are 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 for breach of contract, trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. 2 § 1125(c), false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), cybersquatting (15 U.S.C. § 3 1125(d)), state law trademark infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 14320, 14335 and 4 common law), state law trademark dilution (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14330), and unfair 5 competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500, and common law). The summons and 6 complaint were personally served on defendant LTD by personal service on Michael 7 McLaughlin, agent for service of process, on June 8, 2009. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Pacific Atlantic 8 Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void 9 without personal jurisdiction). Defendant has failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this 10 action. On July 2, 2009, the clerk entered default against defendant LTD. 11 The instant motion for default judgment and supporting papers were served by 12 mail on defendant at its last known address. Defendant filed no opposition to the motion for 13 default judgment. Plaintiffs seek an entry of default judgment against defendant in the form of a 14 permanent injunction.1 15 DISCUSSION 16 Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the 17 complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 18 1977). The court finds the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which 19 relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The 20 memorandum of points and authorities and affidavits filed in support of the motion for default 21 judgment also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. There are no 22 policy considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See 23 1 24 25 26 Although defendant filed for bankruptcy protection on October 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court modified the stay to permit HVLP and RockResorts to pursue injunctive relief for trademark infringement against LTD in this case. In re Lake Tahoe Devel. Co., LLC, No. 0941579-B-11 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.). This court takes judicial notice of that order. A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 1 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 After determining that entry of default judgment is warranted, the court must next 3 determine the terms of the judgment. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction preventing 4 defendant from using the name “The Chateau at Heavenly Village,” the internet domain name 5 www.chateauheavenlyvillage.com, or similar use of the term “Heavenly” or the Heavenly 6 trademarks, and that defendant transfer this domain name to plaintiff. The Lanham Act provides 7 for injunctive relief to prevent trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). The 8 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) provides, inter alia, for injunctive relief 9 to prevent use of a confusingly similar mark in a domain name. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); 10 Ringcentral, Inc. v. Quimby, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2010 WL 1459736 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 11 The injunctive relief requested is reasonable and specifically tailored. Plaintiffs 12 seeks to permanently enjoin defendant from using the name, “The Chateau at Heavenly Village,” 13 the internet domain name www.chateauheavenlyvillage.com, Heavenly’s trademarks or other 14 confusingly similar designations. Plaintiffs also seeks an order preventing defendant from using 15 or reproducing any of the Heavenly trademarks as part of a brand name for its products or 16 services, including the aforementioned names. Also requested is an order requiring defendant to 17 destroy all items in their possession which contain the Heavenly trademarks or aforementioned 18 names. In regard to the www.chateauheavenlyvillage.com domain name, plaintiffs seek an order 19 requiring defendant to relinquish all interest in it or any confusingly similar domain name and 20 transfer all such domain names to HVLP. Finally, plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction 21 preventing defendant, or others acting in concert with defendant, with actual notice from aiding 22 anyone else in engaging in any of the aforementioned activities. This court will recommend that 23 plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be granted in accordance with terms set forth in plaintiffs’ 24 proposed judgment. 25 \\\\\ 26 \\\\\ 3 1 CONCLUSION 2 In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that: 3 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, filed April 15, 2010, (dkt. # 19), be 4 5 6 7 GRANTED. 2. Injunctive relief be granted as specified in plaintiffs’ proposed judgment which is approved as to form and substance. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may 10 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 11 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the 12 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 13 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: 07/22/2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows ___________________________________ GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 GGH:076/Heavenly1533.def.wpd 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.