Dhillon

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Dhillon

Good Law
119 F. App'x 62
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 13, 2004No. 04-55087California289 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chi Hon and Sui Lam, individually and doing business as H & H Liquor (collectively Hon), appeal pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 from the district court’s denial of their motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them for infringement and false designation of registered trademarks under the Lanham Act §§ 32, 43(a), and unfair competition violations under California law. We review the district court’s decision not to vacate the default judgment for abuse of discretion. See Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164 , 1167 n. 7 (9th Cir.2002); De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874 , 880 (9th Cir.2000).

Hon contends that Philip Morris did not provide them with adequate notice of the underlying and default judgment proceedings and that Philip Morris’ allegedly fraudulent consent order offers and representations concerning the legal process prevented them from defending themselves and responding to the complaint. Hon has not proved fraud by clear and convincing evidence, and the record strongly supports the determination that no fraud, misrepresentation, or extraordinary circumstances existed that warranted vacating the motion. In addition, the…

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.