Legal Opinion
Taylor Made Golf Co. v. Carsten Sports, Ltd.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided October 29, 1997No. Civ. No. 96-0126-B (JFS)PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
BREWSTER, District Judge.
I. Case Type and Jurisdiction
Plaintiff Taylor Made Golf Co. moves for judgment by default against defendant Carsten Sports, Ltd., pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has never appeared in this action and has not filed an opposition to this motion. This court has jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1338(b). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(d).
II. Background
Plaintiff manufactures golf clubs and golf apparel. Defendant manufactures and sells…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Curtis B. Danning, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Fenton, Lavine & Co., a Partnership v. Beau Berlinski LavineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Robert Draper v. Davis S. CoombsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Dundee Cement Company v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Pope v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Lindy Pen Company, Inc. Blackfeet Plastics, Inc., Cross-Appellees v. Bic Pen Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
- Pepsico, Inc. v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1999
- HTS, Inc. v. BoleyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2013
- Breaking the Chain Foundation, Inc. v. Capitol Educational Support, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.