Cases

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge DAVIS wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD and Judge KEENAN joined. OPINION DAVIS, Circuit Judge: In this case we clarify what expenses related to electronically stored information (“ESI”) are taxable under the federal taxation-of-costs statute as “[flees for exemplification and the costs o

247 F.Supp.2d 973 (2002) E & J GALLO WINERY, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. MORAND BROS. BEVERAGE CO., d/b/a Romano Bros. Beverage Co., an Illinois corporation, Central Wholesale Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation, Mueller Distributing Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Paramount Distributing Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 02 C 4599. United States D

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Defendant/Counterclaimant Joseph E. Gallo (“Joseph”) appeals. Plaintiff/Coun-terdefendant E. & J. Gallo Winery (“the Winery”), owned by Joseph’s older brothers Ernest and Julio Gallo, initially brought a trademark infringement action against Joseph for the use of the name GALLO on retail packages of cheese. Joseph counterclaimed against the Winery and Ernest and Julio, asserting that he had inh

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Defendant/Counterclaimant Joseph E. Gallo (“Joseph”) appeals. Plaintiff/Coun-terdefendant E. & J. Gallo Winery (“the Winery”), owned by Joseph’s older brothers Ernest and Julio Gallo, initially brought a trademark infringement action against Joseph for the use of the name GALLO on retail packages of cheese. Joseph counterclaimed against the Winery and Ernest and Julio, asserting that he had inher

967 F.2d 1280 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California corporation,Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee,v.GALLO CATTLE COMPANY; Michael D. Gallo; Joseph Gallo,Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants,v.Ernest GALLO; Julio Gallo, Counter-defendants-Appellees. No. 89-16271. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 14,

955 F.2d 1327 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California corporation,Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee,v.GALLO CATTLE COMPANY; Michael D. Gallo; Joseph Gallo,Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants,v.Ernest GALLO; Julio Gallo, Counter-defendants-Appellees. No. 89-16271. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Kolon’s MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION (Docket No. 247). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 3, 2009, E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) filed a Complaint against Kolon Industries, Inc. (“Kolon”) claiming,

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Kolon Industries, Inc.’s (“Kolon”) MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION (Docket No. 1875). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. General Background On February 3, 2009, E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company (“Du

444 F.Supp.2d 1012 (2006) E.S.S. ENTERTAINMENT 2000, INC. dba the Playpen Plaintiff, v. ROCK STAR VIDEOS, INC.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Inc; Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. Defendants. No. CV 05-02966 MMM (JTLx). United States District Court, C.D. California. July 28, 2006. *1013

JAMES P. DONOHUE, Chief United States Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION This matter comes before the Court on several post-trial motions filed by both parties, plaintiff National Products, Inc. ("NPI") and defendant Arkon Resources, Inc. ("Arkon"), following a five-day jury trial for trade dress infringement. Dkts. 182, 186, 188, 190, 196. The Court, having considered the parties' motions, all

OPINION & ORDER HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge Plaintiff adidas makes shoes. Defendant Skechers also makes shoes, adidas asks the Court to prevent Skechers from selling three different shoes which adidas claims are confusingly similar to adidas’s registered trademarks and protectable trade dress. The Court finds adidas is likely to succeed in establishing its right to enforce the marks and trade dress assert

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Table of Contents Introduction.. .795 I. Procedural Background... 797 A. The Evidence in the Record... 797 B. The Parties and the Products... 797 C. The Events Leading to this Litigation ...798 II.

*724 OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge: These cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000-2002. Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publ

ORDER Re: MOTION TO REMAND Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (Dkt. 12, “Motion”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2

782 F.Supp.2d 911 (2011) MATTEL, INC., v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and Consolidated Actions. Case No. CV 04-9049 DOC (RNBx). United States District Court, C.D. California. January 5, 2011. *940 David M. Stern, Kevin E. Deenihan, Matthew C. Heyn, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, John B. Quinn, Randa A.F. Osman, Rory S. Mille

OPINION THOMAS, Chief Judge: These consolidated antitrust actions arise out of an agreement (“Promotion Agreement”) between Netflix and Wal-mart 1 whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix, and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business. The plaintiffs,

617 F.Supp.2d 1051 (2009) CYTOSPORT, INC., Plaintiff, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. No. CIV. S-08-2632 FCD/GGH. United States District Court, E.D. California. May 6, 2009. Order Denying Motion for Stay May 22, 2009. *1059 Glenn W. Peterson, Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP, Roseville, CA, Jed H. H

622 F.Supp.2d 890 (2009) SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff, v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 06-1665 PJH. United States District Court, N.D. California. April 3, 2009. *892 Christine Elaine Cwiertny, Daniel Allen Sasse, Theresa C. Lopez, Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA, David Daniel Cross, Jerome A. Murp

608 F.Supp.2d 1166 (2009) SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff, v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 06-1665 PJH. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 31, 2009. *1169 Christine Elaine Cwiertny, Daniel Allen Sasse, Theresa C. Lopez, Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA, David Daniel Cross, Jerome A. M

Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge NOONAN. OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Skydive Arizona owns and operates one of the largest skydiving centers in the world. Defendants Butler, Quattrocchi, Atlanta SC, Inc., CASC, Inc., and IGOVincent, Inc. (collectively, SKYRIDE) operate an Internet and telephone-based advertising service, mak