Golden 1 Credit Union v. Alnagoma

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, a California Case No. 2:20-CV-01823-KJM-DB corporation, JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION FOR Plaintiff, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT v. ABDULLAH ALNAGOMA, an individual, DBA GOLDEN 1 AUTO SALES,

Defendant.

For good cause shown to the satisfaction of the Court, and upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered in favor of plaintiff Golden 1 Credit Union and against defendant Abdullah Alnagoma dba Golden 1 Auto Sales (“defendant”) as follows: 1. Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(a) and 1125(c), and California Business & Professions Code §§ 14250(a) and 17203 are hereby issued prohibiting defendant, his agents, or anyone working for, with, or on behalf of defendant from using the marks Golden 1, The Golden 1 Credit Union, Golden 1 Credit Union Dealer Services, or any other mark that is likely to cause confusion with these marks, including but not limited to any mark that includes the term “golden 1” or “golden one” for automobile dealership or related services. 2. Defendant is further ordered to immediately cease and desist from using the name Golden 1 Auto Sales, or any iteration or derivation thereof, and will cease and desist from using “golden 1” or “golden one” in any fictitious business name or “DBA” or in any newly created corporate or trade name. 3. Defendant is ordered to remove any advertising signage with the name “Golden 1 Auto Sales” no later than November 16, 2020. 4. Defendant is ordered to immediately cease and desist from using any marketing or advertising materials, including but not limited to business cards, which contain the name “Golden 1 Auto Sales.” 5. Defendant is ordered to immediately undertake efforts to abandon his fictitious business name for Golden 1 Auto Sales, and to completely cease using the name Golden 1 Auto Sales no later than November 16, 2020. 6. The court approves the parties’ stipulation; however, the court in its discretion declines to maintain jurisdiction to en-force the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Kokko- nen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); cf. Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for state courts. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382. DATED: November 30, 2020.