grupo miramar trademark complaint.pdf

8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

1/16

jhi

s

f i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2 4

2 5

2 6

Steven J. Eyre , CB 1197143550 Wilshire Boul eva r d , Suite 1440Los Angeles , C a l i f o r n i a 90010(213)385-6926

Fax (213)[email protected]

Attorney for plaintiff Enrique Carino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

312 N. Spring Street, Ld>s

ENRIQUE CARINO,

Plaintiff,

- v s .

FELIX HILARIO, MARIO HILARIO,P LAYA S L AS T U NA S R E STA UR A N T

INC., a California corporation, CELSO

HERNANDEZ, DOES 1-10,

Defendan t s .

Plaintiff alleges:

N o .

c ?

o

, WE ST E RN DI VISI ON

Angeles, CA 90012

UCV14-7930Wo(MGtfC O M P L A I N T F O R :

1 . F E D E R A L T R A D E M A R K

I N F R I N G E M E N T A N D UNFAIRCOMPETITION;

2. COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT;3 . S T A T E L A W A N D S TAT U T O R Y

T R A D E N A M E INF R INGEM ENTAND DILUTION;

4 . I N T E R F E R E N C E W I T H

P R O S P E C T I V E B U S I N E S S

ADVANTAGE;5. ACCOUNTING;6. TEMPORARY, PRELIMINARY AND

P E R M A N E N T I N J U N C T I V E

R E L I E F

J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D

J U R I S D I C T I O N A ND V EN U E

1. These claims arise under the laws of the United States, particularly under

1-

Car ino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T


2/16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

27

28

the federal Trademark Act, as amended, 15

17200 and California statutory and common

1331 and 1138(a). Jurisdiction is also

jurisdiction as provided under 28 U.S.C.

2. This Court has specific per

each has purposefully committed, within

which these claims arise a nd /o r h as c om m i

and intending that such acts would cause

3. Venue is proper in the

pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1391(b) and 139

and this f edera l d is tr ict and/or h av e t he

federal district through which defendants

the forum state, the claims herein arise frorji

jurisdiction over these defendants is

of fair play and substantial justice.

T H E

4. Plaintiff Enrique Carino is

5. Plaint i ff is informed and

of Los Angeles County, California.

6. Plaint i ff is informed and

of Los Angeles County, California.

7. Defendant Playas Las Tunak

o

U.S.C. 1051 etseq., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

law. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C.

pursuant to the Court's supplemental

1367 .

onal jurisdiction over all of the defendants as

state and within this district, the acts from

ted tortious acts outside California, knowing

w it hi n t he state.

Sta tes Dis t ri c t Court f or t he Central District

(c) in tha t defendants each reside in California

minimum c o nt a ct s w i t h t hi s s ta te and

pjirposely availed themselves of the benefits of

such contacts, an d that th e exercise of

in that it comports with traditional notions

p r o f e r

th e

in ju ry

U n i t e d

requisite

r ea sonab le

its principal place of business at 1107 S

8. Plaint i ff is i nf o rm e d a n d be

owner of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.,

112, Los Angeles, CA 90006.

9. The true names and capacit

o f t h e d e fe n d an t s n a m e d herein as Does 1

Carino vs. Hi lar io

P A R T I E S

resident of Los Angeles County, California,

believes that defendant Felix Hilario is a res ident

believes that defendant Mario Hilario is a resident

Restaurant Inc. is a California corporation with

Al arado 112, LosAngeles, CA 90006.

ieves that Celso Hernandez is t he P resi den t an d

wi th hi s b us in es s a dd re ss a t 1107 S. Alvarado

es, whether individual, corporate or otherwise,

tlkough 10 are presently unknown to plaintiff,

C O M P L A I N T


3/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

2

23

4

25

6

7

28

o

who therefore suessaid defendants bysuch

this complaint to allege the true names and

ascertained such information. Plaintiff is

herein as Does 1through 10 has participatedthis Complaintand is liable to Plaintiff by

G E N E R A L

10 .

fictitious names. Plaintiffwill seek to amend

capacities o f said defendants when he has

ihformed and believes that each defendant named

in some or all of the acts or conduct allegedinReason thereof.

A L L E G AT I O N S

Carino vs. Hilario

PlaintiffEnrique Carino

English, Miramar Group ) in 1976 in Me>

use the Grupo Miramar mark in

performances of his musical group. At

Miramar mark in commerce in the United

and live performances ofhis musical group

11. Plaintiffs use of the Grupp

recordings and live performances of his

beencontinuous since the respective dates

12. In 1991,p laintiff registered

Secretary of State, and in the sameyear

County of Los Angeles for the Grupo

13. In September 2003, plaintiff

GRUPO MIRAMAR w ith the U ni ted States

2,766,548, in international classifications

entertainment services of a musical group

incontestable. Plaintiff renewed the regi

Trademark Office, so that his registration

14 . Plaint iff is informed and

Hilario in 2012 formed a musical group

Miramar ( The International Miramar

word Miramar without authorization or

foiinded the musical group Grupo Miramar (in

ico. At least as early as 1976, plaintiff began towith the sound recordings and live

as earlyas 1982, plaintiffusedthe Grupo

States in connection withthe sound recordings

connec t i Dn

least

Miramar mark in connection with the sound

group in M ex ico and the United States has

first use to the present day.

the Grupo Miramar mark with the California

a fictitious business name statement with the

n m e

registered the service mark and trademark

Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No.

for sound recordings, and 041, for the live

Plaintiffs registration is current and

w it h t he U ni te d States P a ten t an d

in 2 02 3.

that defendants Felix Hilario an d Mario

they style as El Internacional Grupo

) as well as other names that include the

of plaintiff.

musica l

o f

filed

M i n m a r

0 d 9

istrc t i on

ex p i r es

be l i eves

w h i c h

Groilp

cc n s e n t

C O M P L A I N T


4/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

22

23

4

25

6

7

8

Mm up'

Miramar,

b e l iev es

Miramar,

Playas

Carino vs. Hilario C O M P L A I N T


5/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

23

4

25

6

27

28

plaintiffs music musical grouphas been

21 . Plaintiff is informed and

andemployees of defendant Playas Las Tubas

that the use o f the Miramar moniker in

group of defendants Felix Hilario and Marjo

MIRAMAR mark,given the fact that plain

the Playas Las Tunas Restaurant and has

ownership of the GRUPO MIRAMAR

constitutes infringementof plaintiffs right^22 . Plaint iff is informed and

officer of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.

Miramar moniker in connect ion wi th the

Felix Hilario and MarioHilario infringes

the fact that plaintiffhas advised defendant

GRUPO MIRAMAR mark a nd t ha t t he u se

infringement of plaintiffs rights.

23. Plaintiff is also informed ari

Mario Hilario have engaged in other perft

October 17 and 18, 2014 in which they hav^ Miramar n a me .

24. Plaint i ff is also informed

MarioHilariohave booked other engagements

Miramar and that those engagements will

25. The actions o f defendants

confusion generated by defendants' actions

f ro m l o st r ev e nu e .

26. The actions o f defendants

unless and until this Courtprovides injunctive

U>

djstributedthroughout the area.

that the officers, shareholders, servants

Restaurant Inc. k no w o r h as r ea so n to know

connectionwith the advertising of the musicalHilario infringes on plaintiffs GRUPO

:iffperformed orhasbeen booked to perform at

advised the proprietors of the restaurant of hisand that the use of the nameby otherparties

be l i eves

m a i k

Car ino vs. Hila r io

bqlieves that defendantCelso Hernandez, as an

knows or has reason to know that the use of the

advertising of the musical groupof defendants

plaintiffs GRUPO MIRAMAR mark, given

Celso Hernandez of his ownership of the

of the name by other parties constitutes

d believes that defendan ts Felix Hilario an d

ortnances prior to the events scheduled for

been booked and advertisedusing the

o n

a n d believes that defendan ts Felix Hilario an d

for the servicesof their group using the

be advertised using the Miramar name,

caused plaintiff irreparable harm due to the

as well as the economicharm causedto plaintiff

-5 -

h i v e

a n d each of them can be expected to continue

relief prohibiting defendants from engaging

C O M P L A I N T


6/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

22

23

4

25

26

7

28

^ ^ k

o

in their infringing activities.

F I R S T C L A M F O R R ELIEF

FEDERAL TRADEMARK

UNFAIR COMPETITION

27. Plaintiff realleges and i

paragraphs of this complaint.

28. This c laim for relief arises

alleged against all defendants.

29. Plaintiff is the owner of the

the registration of the mark GRUPO

Trademark Office, Reg. No. 2,766,548, in

recordings, and 041, for the liveperformances

is current and incontestable.

30. Plaintiff is the senior user o

which he operates, which is the market for

recordings amongstthe Spanish-speaking

31. Plaintiffs mark is a strong

entitled to the greatest levelof protection.

32. The actions of defendants,

taken place in the same market in which

locations whereplaintiffperforms withhis

33. The dominant e lement in

defendants in each instance have appropriated

MIRAMAR in engaging in the conduct

34. The addition by defendants

Internacional ( International ) to plaintiff

Carino vs. Hilario

INFRINGEMENT AND

, A G AI NS T A L L

DEFENDANTS)

inco porates in this cause of action all previous

jnder 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) andis

musical group Grupo Miramar as well as

MIRAMAR with the United States Patent and

international classifications009, for sound

of a musical group. Plaintiffs registration

the mark Grupo Miramar in the market in

lv e enter tainment serv ices and sound

ations of M ex ico and the United States,

lbark, and is fanciful and arbitrary, and is

-6 -

a n d each of them, complained of herein have

plafntiffoperates, that is the and in geographical

ihusical group Grupo Miramar.

plaintiffs markis Miramar, althoughthe whole of plaintiffs mark GRUPO

comjplained of herein.

?elix Hilario and Mario Hilario of the word

s GRUPOMIRAMARregistered mark, thus

C O M P L A I N T


7/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

2

23

4

25

6

7

28

resulting in the name Internacional Grupo

of the tag del Senor to the same mark, is

confusion as to plaintiffs association with

performance of defendants' musical group35. The use of the above infriii

Restaurant Inc. and CelsoHernandez maks

activity complained of herein.

36. There is a likelihood of

andplaintiffs registered GRUPO MIRAMAR

37. Plaintiff alleges on informition

led to instances of actual confusionby38. Defendants' actions

43(a) ofthe Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 112f

39. Th e actions of defendants

damage to plaintiffs reputation and mark.

40. The actions of defendants

are intended to cause confusion, have caused

confusion unless enjoined.

41. For e ac h a ct o f unfair

damages as well as defendants' profits front

42. Plaintiff is entit led to treble

U.S.C. 11117.

43. Plaintiff is informed and be

of herein were undertaken willfullyand

or deception. Plaintiff is entitled to the

act ion.

44. Monetary relief alone is not

injury that defendants' illegal actions have

o

Miramar usedby defendants, or the addition

insufficient to prevent a likelihoodof

affiliation with, or sponsorshipof the

ging marksby defendants PlayasLas Tunas

each suchdefendant liablefor the infringing

con fus ion between the marks used by defendantsm a r k .

and belief that defendants' actions have

, v en ue o w ne rs and consumers,

unfair competition in violation of section

Carino vs. Hilario

promote r s

cons t i i u te

(a).

as alleged herein, have cause substantial

n d each of themas herein alleged were and

confusion, and will continue to cause

competition, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual

such infringement,

damages andprejudgment interest under 15

ieves that the acts of defendants complained

the intention of causing confusion,mistake

recovery of attorney's fees and costs of this

W l t l

adequate to address fully the irreparable

daused and will continue to cause plaintiffif

C O M P L A I N T


8/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

2

23

4

25

26

7

28

\mmwr

defendants' actions are not enjoined. Plaihtiff thereforepermanentinjunctiverelief to stopdefendants

is also entitled to preliminaryandongoing actsof unfair competition.

SECOND CLAIM F OR R EL IE F

COMMERCIALDISPARAGEMENT,AGAINST ALL

DEFENDANTS)

45. Plaintiff realleges and


46. This c laim for relief arises

against all defendants.

47. Defendants and their cohoifts

characteristicsand qualities of defendants

and is likely to continue to cause, damage

48. In engaging in the actions

them willfully intended and continue to intfend

musical group and sound recordings.

49 . For each ac t o f unfair

damages as well as defendants' profits front

50. Plaintiff is entitled to treble

U.S.C. 11117.

51. Plaintiff is informedand believes

of herein were undertaken willfullyand

52. Monetary relief alone is not

injury that defendants' illegal actions have

not enjoined. Plaintiff therefore is also enti

relief to stop defendants' ongoingunfair competition

Carino vs. Hilario

incorporates in this cause of action all previous

under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B) and is alleged

have misrepresented the nature,

musical groups in a manner that has caused,plaintiff.

mplained of above, defendants and each of

to tradeon the reputation of plaintiff s

competition, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual

such infringement,

damages and prejudgment interest under 15

thatthe acts of defendants complainedintentionally by defendants.

adequate to address fully the irreparable

(taused and will continue to cause plaintiff if

led to preliminary and permanent injunctive

t o

O

COMPLAINT


9/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

23

4

25

6

27

28

{*C 3

T HI RD C LA IM F OR R EL IE F

53.

STATE LAW COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY

TRADENAMEINFRINGEMENT ANDDILUTION,AGAINSTALL DEFENDANTS)

Plaintiffreallegesandinccrporatesin thiscauseofactionallpreviousparagraphs of this complaint.

54. This claim for reliefarises under the laws ofthe State ofCaliforniaand isalleged against all defendants.

55. By their acts alleged hereir, defendants have engaged in trade nameinfringementanddilution,CaliforniaBus. &Prof.Code 14330et seq.,and 14402et seq.

56 . Defendantshaveintentionallydeceived thepublicbymisrepresentingthattheir servicesare connected withplaintiffs musical groupand sound recordings.

57. Plaintiffis informedand believes that the acts ofdefendants describedhereinwereundertaken willfullyandwithtie intentionofcausing confusion,mistakeordeception.

58 . Monetary relief alone is noi adequate to address fully the irreparableinjury thatdefendantsillegalactionshavecausedandwillcontinueto causeplaintiffifdefendantsconductis notenjoined.Plaintff thereforeis alsoentitledtopreliminaryandpermanentinjunctive reliefto stopdefendants' ongoingactsofunfair competition.

F OU RT H C LA IM F OR R EL IE F

INTERFERENCE WITH

ADVANTAGE, AGAINST



60. This claim for relief arises

and is alleged against all defendants.

ROSPECTIVE BUSINESS

ALL DEFENDANTS)

incorporatesin this causeofactionall previous

under the common law of the State of California

Carino vs. Hilario-9 -

COMPLAINT


10/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

22

23

24

5

6

7

28

g ^

61 . Defendan ts and each o f thdm

prospective business advantage of plaintiffby

exploit and benefit commerciallyfrom plaihti

the business of plaintiffs musical group an|d

62. Plaintiff has beendamaged

each of them with plaintiffs economic rela

to this complaint.

63 . The aforement ioned acts of

malicious. Plaintifftherefore should be awarded

alleged by amendment to this complaint

FIFTH CLAIM F O R R EL IE F

ACCOUNTING, AGAINST

64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporatesparagraphs of this complaint.

65. T hi s c la im fo r rel ief arises

and is alleged against all defendants.

66. Defendantsare in possession

defendants from their misleading and decept

represents a misappropriation of monies

ledgers, etc. which will provide this information

each of them. The amount of damages, pro

defendants cannot be ascert a ined wi thou t ar

67. Defendants and each of theip

usurpation of plaintiff s trade name and

and profits realized by defendants and each

68. Plaintiff hereby demands

received by defendants and each of them

through their actions, have interfered with the

interferingwith the right of plaintiffto

if f s trade name and markandthe goodwill of

sound recordings,

by the tortious interference by defendants and

ions in an amount to be alleged by amendment

defendants were and are willful, oppressive and

punitive damages in an amount to be

AL L DEFENDANTS)

in this cause of action all previous

iknder the common law of the State of California

of information relating to monies paid to

ive practices described herein, which

plaintiff. The books, accounts, records,

are in the possession of defendants and

its and interest owing to plaintiff from

accounting by defendants and each of them,

have also benefited economically from the

without accounting to plaintiff for the income

of them as a result o f such activities.

is entitled to, an accounting of all monies

their use of plaintiff s mark and trade name.

m a i k

an d

f rcm

Carino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T


11/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

22

23

4

25

26

7

8

C 3

S IXTH C L A M F OR R EL IE F

TEMPORARY,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,



70. The continuingwrongful

continue to harm the interest of plaintiff in

MIRAMAR. I f this co ur t d oes not issue a

injunction against defendants and each of

MIRAMAR, in connection with the goods

plaintiffwill suffer irreparable harm for

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

inco -porates inthis cause of action all previous

a c t s of defendants herein have harmed an d

the use of th e name an d mark GRUPO

temporary, preliminary and permanent

them prohibiting the use of the name GRUPO

md services of defendants' musical groups,

which there is no adequate remedy at law.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for

1. For an order requiring defendants

should not be enjoined as set forth below

2. For a temporary restraining ord

injunction, all enjoining defendants and

employeesand co-venturers,and all person^

who receive actual notice o f th e court's ordfer

engaging in or performing any of the follow

(a) Using the name GRUPO

colorable imitation of the name, including

or Grupo Miramar, in connection with

the goods or services of defendants or any

(b) Using the name GRUPO

colorable imitationof the name, including

or Grupo Miramar, in any manner for the

- 11 -

Carino vs. Hi lar io

re l i e f ia s f o ll o ws :

to show cause, if they have any, whythey

dbringthe pendency of this action.

2r, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent

of them and their agents, servants,

in active concert or participationwith them

by personal service or otherwise, from

in g acts:

MIRAMAR or any confusingly similar or

n am e w h ic h i nc lu des t he words Miramar '

advertising in any form, or in connection with

o|fthem;

MIRAMAR or any confusingly similar or

n am e w h ic h includes t he w o rd s Miramar

purpose of enhancing the commercial value

a n y :

a i y

C O M P L A I N T


12/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

23

4

25

6

27

28

^y^tt iqggW

of the goods or services of defendants;

(c) Otherwise infringing or diluting the distinctivequality of plaintiffs

service mark and trademark GRUPO MIRAMAR

(d) Causing a likelihood of confusion, deception or mistake as to the

makeup, source, natureor quality of plaint f f s or defendants' services;

(e) Contacting promoters, advertisers or other businesses for the purpose

of offering the services of defendants as GIUPO MIRAMAR or any confusingly similaror colorable imitation of the name;

(f) Uploading or maintainir g videos onthe internet, including without

limitation YouTube, in which the name GE.UPO MIRAMAR, or any confusingly similar

or colorable imitation of the name, including any name which includes the words

Mirmar or GrupoMiramar, is displayed, spoken or other used in the video or inthe

description or title of the video.

3. For an order requiring defenda:itsto deliver upand destroy all promotional

literature, advertising, goods and other material bearingthe infringing, diluting orinjurious designations.

4. For actual damages.

5. For three times the amount ofplaintiffs actual damages suffered by reason of

defendants' infringement of plaintiffs marc and trade name.

6. For three times the amount of cefendants' profits derived from infringementof plaintiff s mark and trade name.

7. For punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

8. For prejudgment interest.

9. For an accounting of all monies received by defendants from their activities

in connection with the infringement of plaintiffs registered mark GRUPO MIRAMAR.

10 . F o r cos t s o f suit.

11. For reasonable attorneys fees.

12. For such other relief as the couit may deem appropriate.

-1 2 -Car ino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T


13/16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

22

23

24

25

26

7

28

Dated: October 13, 2014

0 3

Steven J. EyreAttorney for plaintiff

D EM AN D F OR J U RY T R I A L

Plaintiff demands a trial of this action by a jury

Dated: October 13,2014

13-Carino vs. Hi lar io

Steven J. EyreiAttorney for plaintiff

C O M P L A I N T


14/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAC I V IL C OV E F S H EET

I. a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box ifyou are representing yourself Q

ENRIQUE CARINO

(b) Countyof Residence of First Listed Plaintiff LOS ANGELES(EXCEPT INU.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c)Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) Ifyou are

representing yourself, provide t he same information.STEVENJ. EYRE,ATTORNEYAT LAW3550WILSHIREBLVDSTE 1 4 4 0

LOS ANGELES,CA 90010213 .385 .6926

Dl IFENDANTS (Check box ifyou are representingyourself Q )

FE.IX HILARIO,MARIO HILARIO,PLAYASLAS TUNAS RESTAURANT INC.,a Californi aco-poration, CELSOHERNANDEZ

Cc unty of Residence of First Listed Defendant LOS ANGELES(INU.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

Attorneys {Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) Ifyou are

representing yourself, provide th e same information.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placean Xin on e box only.) III. CITIZENSHIPOF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases OnlyanXin on e box for plaintiff an d on e for defendant)

isStstp II 1 II1 Incorporated or Principal Place(Plac

Cit izen

Cit izen of

| 11. U.S. GovernmentPlaintiff

| 3.Federal Question (U.S.Government Not a Party)

o M hof Business in this S tate

Incorporated an d Principal Placeof Business in An o t h e r State

PT F

4

I I 2. U.S. G o v e r n m e n t

D e f e n d a n t

I 14. Diversity (Indicate Citizenshipof Parties in Item III)

/>n o t h e r State

Subject of aitizen orForeignCobntry

2 2

| | 3 r~\ 3 ForeignNation

5

6

DE F

IV. ORIGIN (Place an Xin on e box only.rrri 1. Original ii 2. Removed from^ Proceeding StateCourt

3. R e m a n d e d f rom

Appella teCourt4. Re in st; te d or

Reopened5. Tr a n s f e rr e d f r o m A n o t h e r

District (Specify)

6 . M u lt i-

I I District Litigation

V. REQUESTEDIN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: [x] Yes No

CLASSACTIONunder F.R.Cv.P. 23: [ J Yes [x] No [x

Check Yes only if demanded in complaint.)

MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ UNSPECIFIED

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statuteunder which youare filing and wriIS U.S.C. sec. 1051 , TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT

;ea brief statement ofcause. Donot cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an Xin on e bo x only).

/.OTHERSTATVJES-;

375 False Claims Act|i 400 StateI Reapportionment

410 Antitrust[~1 430 Banks and Banking

45 0 C o m m er ce / I C CRates/Etc.

460 Deportation47 0 Racketeer Influenced &Corrupt Org.

[ J 480 Consumer Credit

490 Cable/SatTV

85 0 Securi t ies/Commodities/Exchange

iI 890 Other StatutoryIJ Actions

891 Agricultural Acts89 3 E n v i r o n m en t a lM a t t e r s

89 5 Freedom of Info.Ac t

896 Arbitration

89 9 A d m i n . P r o c e d u r e s|~1 Act/Review of Appealof

Agency Decision

950 Cons ti tu tional ityofS t a t e S t a t u te s

CONTRACT

f l 110 Insurance

120 Marine

130 Miller Act140 NegotiableI n s t r u m e n t

150 Recovery of| | Overpayments Enforcement of

Judgment

151 Medicare Act

152 Recovery ofDefaulted StudentLoan (Excl. Vet.)

153 Recovery ofI | Overpaymento f

Vet . Benefi ts

16 0 S t o c k h o l d e r s 'Su its

r~ \ 19 0 O t h e r C o n t r a c t

19 5 C o n t r a c tProduct Liability

196 FranchiseI'TtEAL PROPERTY

[ J 210LandC o n d e m n a t i o n

I | 220 Fo re cl os ure

23 0 R e n t L e a se &

Ejectment

REAL PROPERTYCONT;

D

D

2 4 0 To r ts to L an d

2 4 5 To r t P r o d u c tLiability29 0 All O t h e r RealProperty

IM MIGRATION

4 62

Apr.INatura l i za t ionicat ion

n 4651' Im mO t h e r

gration Actions

jpHtfd.Uirpjffiqw370

371

38 5

O t h e r Fraud

Truth in Lending

380|OtherPersonalPro jer ty Damage

Property DamageProqiuct Liability

BANKRUPTCY,Jn 422L-l use

n 423L-l use

Appeal 2815 8

W i t h d ra w a l 2 8

15 7

C I M . I

440441

442

Other CivilRights

Voting

4 43

44 5

Disajl

n 446iL-1 Disa448

Employment

Housing/Ac e > m m o d a t i o n s

Amer ican wi thbilities-

EmbloymentA m e ri c a n w i t hb i l i t ies-Other

E d u c a t i o n

PRISONER PETITIONS

Habeas Corpus:

I | 463 Alien D et ai ne eII 510 Motions to Vacate'' Sentence

530 General535 Death Penalty

MOther*'\ K.

540Mandamus/Other550 Civil Rights

I| 555 Prison Condition56 0 Civil Det a i n ee

LJ ConditionsofConfinement

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

j-. 625 Drug RelatedI I Seizure of Property 21

USC 88 1

690Other 'B,- , labor; , g v y ;7 10 Fa i r L ab o r S t a n d a r d sAc t

720 Labor/Mgmt.Relat ions

740 Railway Labor Act

751 Family an d MedicalL e a ve A c t

79 0 O t h e r L a b o rLitigation791 Employee Ret. Inc.Security Act

FO R O F F I CE U S E ONLY: C a s e N u m b e r :

CV-71 06/14)

310Airplane

31 5 AirplaneProduct Liability32 0 Assau lt , Libel&S l a n d e r

330 Fed. Employers'Liability

3 4 0 M ar i n e

3 4 5 M a r i ne P r o d u c tLiability

3 5 0 M o t o r Vehic le

3 5 5 M o to r Vehicle

Product Liability36 0 O t h e r P er so n a lInjury362 Personal Injury-Med Malpratice

365 Personal Injury-Product Liability36 7 Heal th Care/P h a r m a c e u t i c a lPersonal InjuryProduct Liability3 6 8 A s b e s to sPersonal InjuryProduct Liability

LACV14-C IV IL COVER

7 3 HSHEET

PRpPERTY RIGHTS

820 Copyrights

830 Patent

[x] 840 Trademark^.ijtPJCi^ECURITY

861 HIA(1395ff)

862 Black Lung (923)

863 DIWC/DIWW(405 (g))864 SSID Title XVI

865 RSI(405 (g))

I; ,F|OpRAL1TAXSWTS,fii 87 0 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff orII Defendant)i- i 871 IRS-ThirdParty 26 USCll 7609

Page 1 of 3


15/16

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT,CENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIACIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII. VENUE: Youranswers tothe questionsbelow willdetermine thedivisionof thetochange, in accordancewith theCourt's General Orders,upon review by theCourtof

Court towhich this case willbe initiallyassigned. ThisinitialassignmentissubjeComplaint or Notice of Removal.oi r

QUESTION A: Wa s t h is case re mo v e dfrom s tate court?

Yes [x] No

If no, skipto Question B. If yes, checkthebox to the right that applies,enter the

corresponding divisionin response toQuestion E,below, and continue from there.

STATECASEWAS.PENDINGllilTHECOUNTYQF:^ ~.V

LosAngeles, Ventura,Santa Barbara,or SanLuisObispo

, : /lNI DIVONf|NCACdils:' 1

We s t e r n

Orange

mmmkiit^ miii^mî^(P:i\\Q RiversideorSan Bernardino

QUESTION B: Is th e United States, orone of its agencies oremployees, aPLAINTIFF in t h i s act ion?

Yes \x\ No

1'i.tf'r ' . ' '

B.1. Do 50% or more of th e defendants whcthe district residein Orange Co.?

checkoneofthe boxesto the right ^H

If no, skipto Question C. If yes, answerQuestion B.I,at right.

f^&cfe '4f j{ i j^vaa^f^ . . ,QUESTIONC: Is th e United States, orone of its agencies oremployees, aDEFENDANT in t h i s ac t ion?

Yes [x] No

If no, skipto Question D. If yes, answerQuestion C.1,at right.

B.2. Do 50%or more of th e defendants who reside inth e district reside in Riverside and/or San BernardinoCounties? (Consider the two countiestogetl er.)

check oneofthe boxes tothe righ t

C.1. Do50%or moreof the plaintiffswho reside inthedistrict reside in Orange Co.?

checkoneofthe boxesto the right ^ ^

C.2. Do 50 ormore ofthe plaintiffs whoresjidein thedistrict reside in Riverside and/or San Bernarc inoCounties? (Consider the two countiestogether.)

check oneof the boxes to the right ^ 1

OTÔTffiaRj^lqflfh nddefend nts

Indicate the location(s) in which 50%or more of plaintiffs who reside in this districtreside. (Check uptotwo boxes, or leave blank ifnoneofthese choices apply.)Indicatethe location(s)in which50%or more of defendants who reside in thisdistrict reside. (Check up to two boxes,or leave blank ifnone ofthese choicesgpp'y-r,,

HWW /b r i^

D.I. Is t h er e a t least o ne answer in Column A?

Yes [X] No

If yes, yourcase will initially be assigned to the

SOUTHERN DIVISION.

Enter Southern in response to Question E, below, an d continue from there.

If no, goto question D2 tothe right. ^ ^

S o u t h e r n

Eastern

.. --. ',j----',,-J,.H..4âi'^fe-;l.>r e s i d e in

YES. Your case will initially beassigned to the Southern DivisioEnter Southern in response to Question E below, andcontinufrom there .

NO. Continueto Question B.2.

YES. Yourcase will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.Enter Eastern in responseto Question E, below, andcontinuef ro m t h e re .

NO. Your case will initially be assignedto the Western DivisionEnter Western in responseto Question E, below, and continuf rom there .

ft .K ft *

YES. Your case will initially be assignedto the Southern DivisioEnter Southern in response to Question E, below, andcontinuf rom there .

NO. ContinuetoQuestion C.2.

YES. Your case will initially beassignedto the Eastern Division.Enter Eastern in responseto Question E, below, and continuefrom there .

NO. Yourcase will initially be assigned to the Western Division.Enter Western in response to Question E, below, and continuef rom there .

A .

'.Orange County' Riverside or Sa n

BernardlfidCounfy 1 ? -. '-j

C.Iqs Angeles, yentura

ISantaîrbara /or Sari'H.uls;0blspoCounty

S

s

D.2 . Is t h e re a t least one answer in Column B?

Yes \X\ No

If yes, yourcase will initiallybe assigned to the

EASTERN DIVISION.Enter Eastern inresponse to Question E, below.

If no, yourcase will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.

Enter Western inresponse to Question E,below.

Enterthe initialdivisiondetermined by Question A, B, C,or Dabove::-V '- > * * ^ M M m M M w ^ L .:: *

WESTERN

y i i im MSMtKm r< r

Do50 or moreofplaintiffs ordefendantsin thisdistrict resideinVentura,Santafiarbara, orSanLuisObispo counties? [H Yesm M ^ ^ ^ m m M d m

No

CV-71 06/14) CIVIL COVER SK EE T Page 2 of 3


16/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL C O VE R S H EE T

IX(a). IDENTICALCASES: Hasthisaction been previously filed inthis court?

Ifyes, listcase number(s): CV12-08492DMG(MANx)(judgment entered as todefendants not includedin this filing)

IX b). RELATEDCASES: Is this case related (asdefined below) toanycases previouslyfiled in this court?

Ifyes,listcase number(s): CV12-08492 DMG (MANx) (two defendants identical)

Civil cases are related when they:

NO YES

NO IU YES

\X\ A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happeni

[x] B. Call fordetermination ofthe sameor substantially related or

[x] C. For other reasonswouldentailsubstantialduplication of la

in g, o r e v e nt ;

^imilar questions of law and fact; or

ifheard by different judges.c r

Checkallboxes that apply. That cases may involve th e same patent,re la ted .

X . S IG NATU RE OF AT TO RN E Y

(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): f tqj3f

trademark, or copyright isnot, in itself, sufficient to deem cases

DATE: October 14 ,2014

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet isrequiredneither replaces norsupplementsthe filing and service of pleadingsorother papersmore detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071 A).

)y Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 an d th e information contained hereinas required by law,except as provided by local rules of court. For

Keyto Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nat u r e o f S u i t C o d e A b b r e v i a t i o n

86 1 HIA

Substantive Statement of Ca(ise of ActionAll c l a i m s fo r h ea l t h i n su r an ce b en e f it sinclude claims by hospitals, skilled nursinc(42U.S.C 1935FF(b))

8 62 BL

8 63 DIWC

8 63 DIWW

8 64 SSID

86 5 RSI

CV-71 06/14)

; (Msdi icare) underTitle 18, Part A,of the SocialSecurity Act,as amended. Also,facilities, etc.,for certificationas providersof servicesunder the program.

All claimsfor Black Lung benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the FederalCoalMineHealth and SafetyActof 1969.(30 U.S.C.923)

All claimsfiled by insured workers for disabiliall claims fi led f o r ch il d 's insurance benef i s

ity insurance benefits under Title 2 ofthe SocialSecurityAct,as amended; plusbased on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All c la ims filed fo r w i d o w s o r w i d ow e r s inamended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

;urance benefits based on disability under Title2 ofthe SocialSecurityAct,as

All claims for supplemental security incorrle payments basedupon disability filed under Title 16ofthe Social SecurityAct,a m e n d e d .

All claimsforretirement (oldage)and survivors benefitsunder Title 2ofthe Social Security Act, asamended.(42 U.S.C.405 (g))

CIVIL C O V E R S H E E T Page 3 o f3

grupo miramar trademark complaint.pdf

Documents