United States District Court, Southern District of New York
April 9, 2003
TOMMY HILFIGER LICENSING, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
HI-FIVE SPORTSWEAR, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge
This is a trademark infringement and counterfeiting case. The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants Hi-Five Sportswear, Inc., a/k/a Hi Five, Inc., and David Sohn, a/k/a David Son.
The action was commenced on December 15, 1998. Its history is detailed on the docket sheet and in the motion papers. For present purposes, it is necessary to state only that Hi-Five and its principal, Sohn, repeatedly failed to appear for deposition. Plaintiffs moved for case dispositive sanctions on or about July 27, 1999. Hi-Five and Sohn thereupon changed attorneys. The Court extended their time to respond to the motion until September 17, 1999. Sohn then filed for bankruptcy relief. In view of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), the Court, on October 1, 1999, denied the sanctions motion without prejudice to renewal upon termination of the bankruptcy stay and placed the case on the suspense docket.
In early 2000, the Court was advised that the bankruptcy stay had been dissolved. It thereupon removed the case, as against Sohn, from the suspense docket, reinstated the sanctions motion against him, and directed the filing of any opposing papers by February 20, 2000. No opposing papers ever were filed. Further, plaintiffs have taken no further steps to prosecute the action.
In all the circumstances, the motion for sanctions as against Sohn is granted for the reasons set forth in the moving papers. Sohn's pleadings are stricken and plaintiffs shall have judgment against Sohn, a/k/a David Son, a/k/a Woo Young Son, as prayed in the complaint. Inasmuch as plaintiffs have made no effort over more than three years to pursue the case against Hi-Five and any other remaining parties, the action, insofar as it has not previously been disposed of against such other parties, is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The Clerk shall close the case.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.