Commodores Entertainment Corporation has sued Thomas McClary, a former Commodores band member, for various trademark claims. Commodores sought summary judgment. Procedurally, McClary's attorney requested a first extension of 8 days for McClary to respond to the dispositive summary judgment motion. The Commodores did not oppose the request and the Court granted it.
During that 8-day period, McClary's counsel attended a hearing in California state court in San Diego. During that hearing, the California state court set a case for jury trial where McClary's counsel is lead trial. That jury trial was set to begin on July 6 - the day after McClary's summary judgment response was due.
On the day of the summary judgment response deadline (July 5), McClary's counsel sought a 2-day extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion. Again, the Commodores did not oppose the request. The next day (after the deadline has passed), the Court denied the motion with the following docket entry:
ENDORSED ORDER denying 415 Motion. Counsel has not demonstrated good cause for the requested second extension. Defendants have other counsel of record who could have assisted. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 7/6/2018. (ZRR) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
Ouch. Later that day, McClary submitted its summary judgment response brief. And a few days later, McClary filed an unopposed motion requesting the brief be accepted as timely. The Court has not yet ruled on that request.
As a practice pointer, it is difficult for the Courts to rule on requested extensions on the day of a particular deadline, and I have not studied the history of this case to see how well it has progressed. But I presume the merits of the case will get resolved.
Commodores Entertainment Corporation v McClary, Case No. 6:14-cv-01335-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2018) (J. Dalton, Jr.)
- Intellectual Property Rights in the Metaverse: Hermès v. Rothschild and the MetaBirkins Saga
- Implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA): What Trademark Owners Need to Know
- Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic Inc.: The Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Assignor Estoppel
- United States v. Arthrex: The Supreme Court Provides the Director of the USPTO with Review Authority over Final PTAB Decisions
- Starting a Business?: Trademark Considerations for Startups
- Congress Passes CASE Act of 2020 and Law Regarding Unauthorized Streaming Services
- Romag Fasteners v. Fossil: Willful Infringement is Not Required to Recover an Award of Profits in Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Squatting or Lucrative Opportunity? Time Will Tell
- Patent and Trademark Deadlines Further Extended Due to the COVID-19 Crisis
- Does the COVID Crisis Warrant Ex Parte Relief to Address Price Gouging under Trademark Theories?
- Senior Associate