GS Holistic, LLC v. SF Hookah Palace Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 4:22-cv-07100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GS HOLISTIC, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-07100-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING, IN PART, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v. ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN PART 10 SF HOOKAH PALACE INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 23 Defendants. 11

12 13 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the report and recommendation 14 on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment issued by Magistrate Judge Van Keulen (the “Report”), 15 in which she recommends granting the motion in part. Plaintiff did not file objections. 16 Defendants still have not appeared in this action. The Court has considered the Report, Plaintiff’s 17 motion, and the record in this case. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report in 18 part. 19 The Court ADOPTS the Report’s analysis and conclusions on subject matter jurisdiction, 20 personal jurisdiction, and service of process. 21 The Court also ADOPTS, IN PART, the Report’s analysis and conclusions on the Eitel 22 factors. Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of boilerplate and conclusory allegations that are identical, 23 or nearly identical, to other complaints Plaintiff has filed in this District.1 The Court ADOPTS the 24 Report’s analysis that the allegations are sufficient, albeit barely, to allege SF Hookah Palace, Inc. 25

26 1 Compare Dkt. No. 1 with, e.g., GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes, Inc., No. 22-cv-07628- JSW, Dkt. No. 1; see also GS Holistic, LLC v. The Fatty Zone, No. 22-cv-07098-JD, Dkt. No. 29, 27 Order re Default Judgment at 1:22-26 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023) (noting plaintiff uses “a cut-and- 1 is liable for trademark infringement and false designation of origin based on the single product its 2 investigator purchased. Because Plaintiff did not allege facts to show that product bore all three 3 marks, the Court also ADOPTS the Report’s conclusion that Plaintiff has shown infringement of 4 one of its three marks. 5 However, the Court departs from the conclusion that default judgment should be entered 6 against Mr. Asfour. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Asfour “authorized, directed, and/or participated in” SF 7 Hookah Palace’s conduct and alleges he was a “moving, active, and/or conscious force” behind SF 8 Hookah Palace, Inc.’s actions. Those are legal conclusions devoid of any factual support, and the 9 Court concludes they are not sufficient to satisfy the second and third Eitel factors. See, e.g., GS 10 Holistic LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, No. 22-cv-7101-YGR-LJC, 2023 WL 5993055, at *4-6 (N.D. 11 Cal. Aug. 25, 2023), report and recommendation adopted 2023 WL 6932565 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 12 2023) (finding similar allegations insufficient to support second and third Eitel factors). 13 Finally, the Court ADOPTS the conclusions and analysis on the amount of statutory 14 damages to award Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. section 1171(c)(1), that costs are appropriate, and that 15 the request for injunctive relief should be denied.2 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against SF 17 Hookah Palace, Inc. and awards Plaintiff $5,000 in statutory damages and $532.00 in costs. The 18 Court DENIES, WITHOUT PRJUDICE, Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment against Mr. Asfour. 19 Plaintiff may renew the motion as to Mr. Asfour, if it can support that motion with additional facts 20 that would support a finding that he should be held individually liable for the actions of the 21 corporate defendant. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 ] If Plaintiff fails to file a renewed motion by April 22, 2024, the Court will close the case 2 || and enter final judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. a} 4 |] Dated: March 22, 2024 f | / / é I ; 5 fEFFREY S. WHITE 6 / /Onit A States District Judge 7 Lf 8 9 10 1] as 12

«14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28