Roxbury Entertainment v. Penthouse Media Group, Inc.

Good Law
669 F. Supp. 2d 1170·2009 WL 3820313·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115052
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 9, 2009Case 2:08-cv-03872-FMC-FMOxCalifornia2,566 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (docket no. 135), filed on August 14, 2009, and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 154), filed under seal on October 5, 2009. The Court has read and considered the moving, opposing, and reply documents submitted in connection with this motion. The Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing scheduled for November 16, 2009, is removed from the Court’s calendar. For the reasons and in the manner set forth below Defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgement (docket no. 135) is GRANTED, an Defendants’ second motion (docket no. 145), Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, is DENIED AS MOOT.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As has been set out in previous orders issued by the Court, this action arises out of a dispute regarding the use of the mark “Route 66” in connection with video entertainment products. Plaintiff Roxbury Entertainment is in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.