Russolillo

Sebastian International, Inc. v. Russolillo

Good Law
151 F. Supp. 2d 1215·2001 WL 793324·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16066
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2001CV-00-03476-CM(JWJx)California3,150 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moreno, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Presently before the Court are three motions for summary adjudication brought by Plaintiff Sebastian International, Defendant Damian Christopher Inc., (“DCI”) and Defendant Quality King (“QK”). Having reviewed the papers, the evidence submitted in support thereto, and having heard oral argument on Monday June 25, 2001, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs Motion and denies Defendants’ Motions for the following reasons.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

On May 21, the parties filed their Motions for Summary Adjudication. There are very few applicable facts. Sebastian brand products include hairsprays, shampoos, conditioners, colorings, gels, mousse, and other hair treatments. Different codes are imprinted on Sebastian products, which are the lot or batch codes, date codes, holograms, and tracking codes. See Reidel Decl. at ¶23. The batch codes identify the product’s manufacturer, the year and the month that the product was made, and the batch from which the container was filled. See Stoops Depo. Date codes indicate when the product was filled. Id.

Sebastian…

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.