American Majestic Construction , LLC v. Junior et al, No. 1:2019cv00264 - Document 80 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/4/2020. (lcre, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
American Majestic Construction , LLC v. Junior et al Doc. 80 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 922 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division AMERICAN MAJESTIC CONSTRUCTION,LLC, Plaintiff, l:19-cv-264(LMB/IDD) CHRISTOPHER D. JUNIOR,etal.. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants Christopher D. Junior("Chris Junior"), Paul Junior, and Paul Bao Nguyen ("Paul Nguyen")(collectively,"defendants") have filed a Motion for Attorney Fees [Dkt. No. 62] in which they seek attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h). For the reasons that follow, this motion will be denied. 1. BACKGROUND In this civil action, American Majestic Construction, LLC ("plaintiff or"AMC")sued defendants for conspiring to falsely present themselves to the public as partners or members of AMC to procure construction contracts for their own benefit. The complaint included three counts: false designation of origin in violation ofthe Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) (Count I)(against defendants Chris and Paul Junior); common law unfair competition(Count II) (against defendants Chris and Paul Junior); and statutory business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 and § 18.2-500 (against all defendants). The complaint alleged that Chris Junior forged an AMC lien waiver to make it appear that roofing work on a property previously owned by his father Paul Junior(the "Parish Lane property") had been done by AMC,when in fact, Chris Junior and/or his father had done the Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 923 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID# 924 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID# 925 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID# 926 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID# 927 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID# 928 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 929 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 930 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 931 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 932 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 933 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID# 934 Case 1:19-cv-00264-LMB-IDD Document 80 Filed 05/04/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID# 935
]]>
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.
