Michael Shwartz v. Hicham Khodr, No. 17-30650 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-30650 Document: 00514581507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-30650 FILED August 1, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MICHAEL L. SHWARTZ, Plaintiff - Appellant v. HICHAM KHODR, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:17-CV-629 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is another suit in the long line of litigation regarding the trademarks associated with Camellia Grill and the second time that the parties are before this court. See Uptown Grill, L.L.C. v. Shwartz, 817 F.3d 251, 255 (5th Cir. 2016). Prior to Hurricane Katrina, Michael Shwartz operated the Camellia Grill in New Orleans, Louisiana, through Camellia Grill, Inc. (“CGI”). Shwartz owned the real property associated with Camellia Grill himself. Another one of his entities, Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. (“CGH”), held Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-30650 Document: 00514581507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2018 No. 17-30650 the trademarks associated with Camellia Grill. In August 2006, he sold the Camellia Grill to Hicham Khodr through three contracts: (1) Shwartz transferred the real property to Rano, L.L.C. (Khodr’s entity); (2) Shwartz, CGI, and CGH transferred tangible personal property and certain trademarks to Uptown Grill, L.L.C. (Khodr’s entity); and (3) CGH gave permission to Grill Holdings, Inc. (Khodr’s entity), to use the Camellia Grill trademarks. In the instant action, Shwartz attempts to recover for his claimed loss of the Camellia Grill trademarks, by alleging fraud and misrepresentation during the transfer of the Camellia Grill to Khodr’s entities. Shwartz originally filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi; that district court then transferred the matter to the Eastern District of Louisiana. The transferee district court then dismissed Shwartz’s claims, reasoning that he lacked standing to bring his claims. As CGH—not Shwartz—owned the Camellia Grill trademarks, CGH—not Shwartz—sustained the alleged injury. Therefore, Shwartz did not have standing to bring this action. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
