The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A.

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 28, 2020
Docket6:19-cv-00407
StatusUnknown

This text of The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A. (The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A., (M.D. Fla. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:19-cv-407-Orl-37EJK

DANIEL J. NEWLIN, P.A.,

Defendant. _____________________________________

ORDER Plaintiff sued Defendant for declaratory relief, arguing Plaintiff’s Google Ads did not infringe on Defendant’s intellectual property rights. (Doc. 6.) The parties now seek approval and entry of a proposed consent decree. (Doc. 35; Doc. 35-3 (“Proposed Decree”).) A consent decree, although predicated on the agreement of the parties, is a judgment that requires a court to determine whether the settlement is “fair, adequate[,] and reasonable.” United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 439, 441 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (citation omitted).1 “Though the decision to approve or reject a consent decree is left to a district court’s discretion, . . . the court must exercise its judgment deferentially.” United States v. Bay Area Battery, 895 F. Supp. 1524, 1528 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (citation omitted).

1 Although City of Miami was decided after September 30, 1981, it is “binding precedent for the Eleventh circuit because it was decided by the full en banc court of the former Fifth Circuit.” Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 117 F.3d 1238, 1243 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982)). Under the Proposed Decree, the parties agree Plaintiff's purchase through Google Ads of specified generic terms (Doc. 6-5), and the content of Plaintiff's internet advertisement (Doc. 35-3, p. 5), both copied below, do not infringe on Defendant's intellectual property rights. (Doc. 35-3, 41.) Case 6:19-cv-00407-RBD-EJK Document 6-5 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 2 PagelD 67

vehicle crash attorney accident and injury injury & accident lawyers bodily injury claim top rated accident attorney personal injury car accident attorney personal accident lawyer accident lawyers in my area car crash settlement auto claim lawyer motor vehicle attorney lawyer car accident settlement good accident attorney accident lawsuit automobile accident lawyer near me auto attorney near me accident injury lawyers near me motor accident lawyers iwas ina car accident bodily injury lawyer car crash lawsuit auto accident personal injury vehicle accident law firm car crash claim personal injury claims car accident accident injury attomneys near me auto accident litigation auto lawyers near me

-2-

Case 6:19-cv-00407-RBD-EJK Document 35-3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 5 of 5 PagelD 247

Injured in a car accident? | Know your legal ib Rights | maherlawfirm.com www.maherlawfirm.com/car-accidents

Celebrating 50 years of helping the injured when in a car accident. Know your legal rights. Get the compensation you deserve. Types: Dangerous Drugs, Wrongful Death, Medical Negligence, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Spinal Cord Injuries, Class Action Litigation.

The parties agree Plaintiff is entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), in an amount agreed upon between the parties, and each party will bear their

own attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 35-3, { 2.) The parties request the Court close the case and retain jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree. (Doc. 35-3.) On review, the Court finds the Proposed Decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable but the Court declines to retain jurisdiction. See City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 439, 441. So, the Court will grant the Motion in part, and approve and enter the Proposed Decree.

-3-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The parties Joint Stipulation and Request for Final Judgment Upon Consent (Doc. 35) is GRANTED IN PART. a. The Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Proposed Decree (Doc. 35-3) as an Order of the Court but DECLINES to retain jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 27, 2020.

wy. ROY B. DALTON JR! United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record

-4-

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

Related

Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Florida
117 F.3d 1238 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Murray Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.
667 F.2d 33 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Bay Area Battery
895 F. Supp. 1524 (N.D. Florida, 1995)
United States v. City of Miami
664 F.2d 435 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-maher-law-firm-pa-v-daniel-j-newlin-pa-flmd-2020.