Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedSeptember 21, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-22322
StatusUnknown

This text of Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:23-CV-22322-KMW

BETTY'S BEST, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE 'A',

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CONTINUATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Betty’s Best Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 17), filed under 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503, 35 U.S.C. §§ 281, 283, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), against Defendants identified on Schedule “A” as 286 to 694, 697 to 699, 701, 705, 706, 709, 711, 712, 719, 722, 726, 729 to 731, 737, 739, 740, 742, 744, 746, 752, 753, 755 to 758, 762, 764, 774, 776, 777, 779, 782 to 784, 787 to 797, 801, 802, 806, 808 to 812, 814, 816, 823, 828, 830, 833, 836, 837, 838, 841 to 843, 845, 846, 852, 855, to 857, 860 to 862, 866, 868, 869, 872 to 874, 881 to 887, 889, 890, 893 to 896, 898 to 900, 920, 921, 926, 929, 930, 932 to 937, 939, 941, 943, 944, and 946 to 1099,1 also listed on Exhibit 1 attached hereto (“Defendants”).

1 Prior to the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the TRO as to the defendants numbered 1 through 285 on September 19, 2023 at ECF No. 37. Plaintiff is not requesting the Court rule on its Motion against these defendants. The Court has carefully considered the Motion (ECF. No. 17), the record, and the governing law. For the reasons stated below, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be GRANTED as against these Defendants. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Continue Deadlines and Hearing Date on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DE 40) as to certain other Defendants2 be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND On September 1, 2023, the Court affirmed and adopted the Report and Recommendation issued by the undersigned at ECF No. 22, thereby entering a temporary restraining order and an order restraining the financial accounts used by Defendants (the “TRO”). (ECF No. 24). The TRO set a hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) for September 14, 2023. The hearing was continued to September 21, 2023 to allow Defendants to be served and to file a response to the Motion. (ECF No. 31). Prior to the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff filed Proofs of Service on the Defendants3 pursuant to the Court’s Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process

entered on July 31, 2023 at ECF No. 21. Plaintiff’s proofs of service affirmed that the Plaintiff served process on the Defendants by emailing these Defendants the text of the summons issued in this action and the link http://www.sriplaw.com/notice where the full text of the Complaint, exhibits thereto, Temporary Restraining Order, and the full text of all other documents filed in this action are available to view and download in compliance with this Court’s Order on Alternate Service.4

2 See page 3 of this Report and Recommendation for full list of these 64 defendants. 3 ECF Nos. 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 to 52, 54, 56 to 69 to 71. 4 At the September 21, 2023 hearing, Plaintiff stated it was not seeking that the Court recommend that a preliminary injunction be entered against the defendants it had not yet served nor the four defendants served the morning of the hearing. These defendants are not included in this Report. Present at the hearing was counsel for the following sixty-four defendants: Doe No. Marketplace Merchant Name 702 Other anblinlast 704 Other approachee

713 Other awakelet 714 Other beautifuldeer 715 Other befullofbest 720 Other blink-rain 728 Other cheap-easy-go 735 Other conversionb 743 Other dice-fox 754 Other enjoyaitlife

763 Other fankisses 765 Other feelrational 767 Other firemid 769 Other flowercog 772 Other formulalm 773 Other frame-wood. 775 Other futuremagics 778 Other glossarye

780 Other gorgeifous 781 Other gorgeousdo 785 Other hailoyearn 786 Other happytoobtain 798 Other infrontofmoon 800 Other jewelawne

803 Other jingle-shines 817 Other lovermelody 818 Other lovertune 819 Other luckyarrange 821 Other mattch-better 822 Other matureidea 825 Other meotilicn 831 Other moonlightooze 832 Other movingtune

839 Other onalevelwith 840 Other opportunuity 847 Other purebluestars 858 Other semi-sugarism 870 Other smarts-blue 871 Other somethebest 877 Other subtlecloud 878 Other sunnylada

879 Other sunshinebl 880 Other superbzeal 883 Other swan-sunny 888 Other theflycloud 891 Other tophotred 904 Other witmethod

906 Other alcartoonly 907 Other allhaulm 909 Other bulk-supplement 910 Other confidencem 911 Other costumebrand 912 Other embravewise 913 Other goblinpocket 914 Other happyhours-rover

915 Other implicitm 916 Other inputependa 917 Other magicport 918 Other milletgo 919 Other mite-wood 922 Other puppup 923 Other rationalu

924 Other supvogue 927 Other youngfight

The parties informed the Court that they agreed to extend the TRO as to the aforementioned 64 defendants, and requested the Court continue the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction against these defendants for approximately three weeks. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for such an extension of the temporary restraining order with the consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). The Court will therefore recommend that the Temporary Restraining Order as to these 64 defendants be extended to October 18, 2023. The

hearing on Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion against these 64 defendants will take place on October 18, 2023 at 4:00 pm via videoconference. The deadline for these defendants to file an opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be October 9, 2023. The deadline for Plaintiff to file its Reply in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be October 10, 2023. The Court has reviewed the evidence presented to the Court on the Motion for the remaining Defendants. The Court hereby determines that it has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants since the evidence presented on the Motion shows that the defendants (except those indicated above on whom service was not made) have been served with process pursuant to this Court’s order authorizing alternative service. The Court also determines that these defendants

directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, and specifically that the defendants are reaching out to do business with Florida residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores on internet marketplaces where Florida residents can purchase products bearing infringing and/or counterfeit trademarks belonging to the Plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Leon F. Harrigan v. Ernesto Rodriguez
977 F.3d 1185 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bettys-best-inc-v-the-individuals-partnerships-and-unincorporated-flsd-2023.