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.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Manzo

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 21, 2016

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Juan Valencia Manzo, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND OPINION [RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKET 26 AND 27]

          JOHN W. SEDWICK, SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

         At docket 17 the court entered a final default judgment in favor of plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). At docket 19 defendants Juan Valencia Manzo (“Manzo”), Luz Valencia (“Valencia”), and Manzo Restaurants at Central, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) move pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 60(b) for an order setting the judgment aside. Plaintiff opposes at docket 22. Defendants reply at docket 25.

         Before the court are two motions related to the above filings. At docket 26 Plaintiff moves to strike portions of Defendants' reply, and at docket 27 Plaintiff moves for leave to file a surreply. At docket 29 Defendants oppose the motion to strike, but not the motion for leave to file a surreply. Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

         Oral argument was not requested but would not assist the court.

         II. BACKGROUND

         “Ultimate Fighting Championship 157: Ronda Rousey v. Liz Carmouche” is a televised fighting program (“the Program”) that aired in February 2013. Plaintiff sued Defendants for showing the Program at their restaurant without authorization, in violation of Plaintiff's rights as the Program's exclusive commercial domestic distributor.

         On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a request for entry of default against all Defendants.[1] This request was supported by proofs of service from James Menona (“Menona”), a process server who declared that on April 9, 2015, at around 12:20 pm he served a copy of the summons and complaint on all three defendants at Valencia Produce, a separate business that Manzo runs.[2] Menona states that he served all three defendants the same way: “by delivering [copies of the documents] to and leaving [them] with” Manzo and Valencia, personally.[3]

         After a clerk's entry of default was issued, [4] Plaintiff moved the court to enter a default judgment in its favor in the amount of $23, 000.[5] The court granted Plaintiff's motion on June 11, 2015.[6] Exactly one year later, on June 11, 2016, Defendants filed their motion to set aside the default judgment.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion for Leave to File a Surreply

         Based on Defendants' non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a surreply that responds to new arguments and evidence that Defendants raised for the first time in reply, including but not limited to the declaration of Linda J. Guzman (“Guzman”) at docket 25-1.[7]

         B. Motion to Strike

         Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“Local Rule”) 7.2(m) governs motions to strike. It provides in pertinent part that a motion to strike may be filed “if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court ...


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.