Legal Opinion
Luxottica Group, S.P.A. v. Airport Mini Mall, LLC
District Court, N.D. Georgia
Decided May 16, 2016No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-01422-ATPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Amy Totenberg, United States District Judge
This action for contributory infringement under the Lanham Act is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc. 77]. Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seek to strike each of Defendants’ sixteen defenses raised by Defendants in their Answer to Plaintiffs’ March 4, 2016 Amended Complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion [Doc. 77] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Karen Renee Augustus, a Minor, by Charles A. Augustus, Her Father, and Next Friend v. The Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- In Re Rawson Food Service, Inc., Debtor. Flav-O-Rich, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Rawson Food Service, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Cash America East, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2016
- McNeal v. Fram Renewable Fuels LLC.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2025
- Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Rowlo, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2026