Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WowWee Group Ltd. v. Meirly

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 7, 2020

WowWee Group Ltd., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Meirly, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          ALISON J. NATHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a trademark infringement action brought by Plaintiffs WowWee Group Ltd., WowWee Canada, Inc., and WowWee USA, Inc. against 83 Defendants. On March 27, 2019, the Court issued a Final Default Judgment as to Plaintiffs' federal claims, as well as one of its state claims against 45 defaulting defendants. It also granted a post-judgment asset freeze pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. See Dkt. No. 84, at 12. However, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a broader post-judgment asset freeze based on Rule 65, the Lanham Act, and the Court's equitable powers, as explained in its Opinion and Order. See WowWee Group Ltd. v. Meirly, No. 18-cv-706, 2019 WL 1375470 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2019) [hereafter, "DJ Op."]. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of the asset freeze and transfer. See Dkt. No. 90, 91. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual history of this trademark action. See DJ Op. at *1-2.

         In its March 2019 Opinion and Order, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the 45 defaulting defendants. See DJ Op. at * 1 n.1. The Court granted the motion on the Plaintiffs' trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and copyright infringement claims. It also granted the motion with respect to Plaintiffs' unfair competition claim under New York law. As a remedy, the Court granted permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages, but denied Plaintiffs' request for a post-judgment asset freeze or transfer pursuant to Rule 65, the Lanham Act, and the Court's equitable powers. DJ Op. at *7-* 11. However, in its Judgment the Court did grant an asset freeze pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. See Dkt. No. 84, at 12. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs requested that the Court continue the preliminary injunction order issued on February 8, 2018 pending a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 87. On April 8, the Court denied the continuation request. Dkt. No. 88. Now, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the denial of the post-judgment asset freeze and asset transfer. Dkt. No. 90, 91.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an "extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Secs. Litig., 113 F.Supp.2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quotation omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to "relitigate an issue already decided," Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995), or to "advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in connection with the underlying motion." Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F.Supp.2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). For this reason, a district court has broad discretion in deciding a motion for reconsideration.

         A motion for reconsideration should only be granted "when the [moving party] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Virgin Atl Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). The standard is "strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Asset Freeze

         Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court's denial of its requested asset freeze. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs appear to be under the mistaken impression that the Court's Opinion and Judgment failed to grant any asset freeze at all. That is, Plaintiffs appear to be unaware that the Court did grant an asset freeze pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. The Court's Opinion explained that Plaintiffs "should turn to the remedies ordinarily applicable to enforcement of judgments at law under Rule 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222" in order to freeze Defendants' assets. DJ Op. at * 11. Moreover, the Judgment issued by the Court ordered that:

In accordance with Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 5222 of New York State's Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), and this Court's inherent equitable power to issue remedies ancillary to its authority to provide final relief, the Defendants are forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which they have an interest, except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of Section 5222 of the CPLR.

Dkt. No. 84, at 12.

         The Court therefore did order an asset freeze under Rule 69 and state law. What the Court denied was a broader asset freeze pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, the Lanham ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.