Trafficschool. Com, Inc. v. Edriver, Inc.

Good Law
633 F. Supp. 2d 1063·2008 WL 4000805·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78359
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 4, 2008CV 06-7561 PA (CWx)California10,406 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR FALSE ADVERTISING

A court trial was held on November 6-8, 2007. On November 28, 2007, Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed their Post-Trial Briefs, and on January 24, 2008, Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed their final responses to the opposing parties’ proposed Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. After considering the evidence, briefs, and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed initial their complaint. The complaint was subsequently twice amended, and on July 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging (1) Unfair Competition/False Advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), and (2) Unfair Competition under Califor-nia Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Defendants filed an answer to the TAC on August 10, 2007, in which they asserted twelve affirmative defenses, including unclean hands, laches, and that Plaintiffs lack standing.

Plaintiff TrafficSchool.com, Inc. (“TSC”) is a California corporation 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.