PLEG235 FINAL SUBMISSION

docx

School

Bryant and Stratton College, Buffalo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

235

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronCaterpillarMaster621

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 KRISTINE HUBBERT PLEG 235 12/16/2023 Portfolio Project 1

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Memo To: Lisa Howard, Attorney From: Kristine Hubbert, Paralegal Re: Reasearch plan Sweet Lorraine Trademark Infringement case ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mrs. Howard, I have received your email requesting my help about the trademark issue with our client Christine Donnelly, owner of Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC. 8 months ago, our client received an email from Mr. Greg Sawyer, owner of Sweet Lorraine’s Café and Bar, in Detroit Michigan upset claiming a potential trademark infringement with the phrase “Sweet Lorraine's”. Mr. Sawyer has a trademark on the phrase "Sweet Lorraine's" for all restaurants, catering, and baking services in the United States. The trademark has been confirmed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He has threatened legal action against our client unless she changes the name of her business or ceases the use of the trademark phrase. Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC ("SLB") is a family-owned business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. They specialize in French and Italian-inspired pastries, cakes, cookies, and artisan breads. SLB operates a store location and has a website, Facebook page, and Twitter account for advertising purposes. Mr. Sawyer and his wife are also venturing into franchising macaroni and cheese 2

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 establishments called "Sweet Lorraine's Mac n' Cheez Kitchen." They currently have two locations in Detroit suburbs and have received interest from an individual in North Carolina about extending their franchise into that state. The client reached out wanting advice on whether they should change the name of the business or stand firm, we recommended that she not change the name, and to stand firm. It has been 2 months since we advised her to not to change the name and now, she received an email this time from Marsha Jabber an attorney for the Sawyer’s with a Summons and Complaint against SLB that was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in the state of Michigan. It appears that counsel for Mr. Sawyer has wrongly filed the lawsuit in Michigan State Court, not in federal district court. Mrs. Donnelly nor any employees of the client was personally served with the Summons and Complaint. Below is my research plan based on two separate arguments: 1. The Federal district court has original jurisdiction over this case because the claims arise out of federal law. 2. There is diversity of citizenship between the parties. My research is limited to the cases coming out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Research Plan: Removal to Federal Court Factual Vocabulary:  Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235  Sweet Lorraine’s Café and Bar  Sweet Lorraine’s Mac n’ Cheez Kitchen  Service of process  Wayne County Circuit Court  United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Legal Vocabulary :  Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals  LANHAM ACT  Motion to remove case to Federal Court  Trademark infringement  Diversity of Citizenship  28 U.S.C.$1441.1446 Legal Issues:  Can the motion be removed to federal court because the federal district court has original jurisdiction over this case because the claims arise out of federal law?  Is there diversity of citizenship between the parties, and if so, can the motion be removed to federal court? Primary Sources:  28 U.S.C. §1331  28 U.S.C §1332  28 U.S.C. §1441  28 U.S.C §1442  28 U.S.C. §1446  28 U.S.C §1453(b) Secondary Sources:  William Blesch, Handling Trademark Violations in the U.S. , TermsFeed (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/faq-handling-trademark-violations-usa/ .  Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Based Upon Diversity of Citizenship Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 -- United States Supreme Court Cases, 45 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 407  1 The Law of Advertising § 11.02 (2023) 4

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235  3 Gilson on Trademarks § 11.03 (2023) Estimated Research Time: Given the complexity of the issues, it's estimated that the research will take approximately 15-20 hours. This includes time for finding and reviewing relevant case law, statutes, and secondary sources, as well as time for analysis and synthesis of the information. Kristine Hubbert 5

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Portfolio- Mid term Analysis of complaint. 7

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 MEMO To: Lisa Howard, Attorney From: Kristine Hubbert, Paralegal Date: 11/25/2023 Subject: Sweet Lorriane’s Bakery- Analysis of complaint. Dear Mrs. Howard, I am writing to inform you that I have completed the letter to our client Mrs. Donnelly about the summons complaint she received from Mr. Sawyer for you to review and sign. In the letter, I have provided a detailed analysis of each of the causes of action raised against her for trademark infringement. I have identified and summarized all the potential defenses that we can raise in our answer to the complaint. I have thoroughly evaluated the possible merit of each defense and provided a detailed explanation of the legal basis behind each. Lastly, I have provided a summary of the preliminary strategy and explained the next steps we need to take in this process. I have included a timeline for these steps and have ensured that the strategy aligns with our client's interests. If you need anything else, please let me know. Sincerely, Kristine Hubbert, Paralegal Khubbert@howardmills.com 8

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Dear Miss Donnelly, We are writing to inform you that we have received a Summons and Complaint in the matter of Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC v. Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan. As your legal representatives, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the case and would like to provide you with a more detailed overview of the situation. The plaintiff, Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, is alleging that Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, has infringed on its trademark and trade dress by using a similar name and logo in its business. The plaintiff claims that this has caused confusion among consumers and has resulted in a loss of revenue for their business. After a thorough review of the case, we have identified potential merits, potential defenses, and an outline of our preliminary litigation strategy. 1.Causes of Action: 1. Trademark Infringement: (15 U.S.C. § 1114) Trademark law is governed by the federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114), which protects a trademark owner's exclusive right to use a symbol, name, or identifier that distinguishes and protects goods or services in the marketplace. Infringement can occur when the unauthorized use of a similar trademark leads to confusion among consumers about the source of the goods or services. The likelihood of confusion among consumers is a key factor in trademark infringement cases 2. Federal Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1114) Dilution is when a famous trademark loses its uniqueness or value due to its association with another product or service. There are two types of dilution: blurring and tarnishment. For a trademark to be famous, it must have a high level of recognition and distinctiveness. Factors that determine this include advertising and sales volume. 3. False Designation of Origin : (15 U.S.C. § 1125) False Designation of Origin is a provision within the Lanham Act that aims to protect consumers from being misled or deceived about the true source of products or services in the marketplace. This provision makes it illegal to use false or misleading information about the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. Its main goal is to ensure that consumers are not confused or misled about the true source of products or services they buy and that they can make informed decisions based on correct information. 4. Common Law Trademark Infringement : C ommon law trademark rights are established by being the first to use a trademark in commerce within a specific geographic region. This allows exclusive rights to use the trademark in sales, marketing, production, and other aspects of the business within that region. However, these rights are generally limited to the geographic area where the mark is used and require the trademark to be capable of distinguishing the goods or services from those of another. 9

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 . 5 .Common Law Unfair Competition : A central element of unfair competition is the likelihood of confusion among consumers. If a competitor's actions are likely to confuse consumers about the source, origin, or sponsorship of goods or services, it may be considered unfair competition. Unfair competition includes a wide range of unfair or deceptive acts, including false advertising, misrepresentation of products, passing off (presenting one's goods or services as those of another), and other misleading practices. 2.Merit to the actions: 1. Trademark Infringement: Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC alleges that SLB's use of the name "Sweet Lorraine’s" is trademark infringement. They claim that SLB intentionally and knowingly manufactured, distributed, and sold the infringing products without authorization or consent, directly competing with their business in interstate commerce. Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC argues that Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery's use of the name constitutes trademark infringement, violating their exclusive rights. They state that the use of the name has caused confusion among consumers and harm to their business interest. The validity of the claim depends on whether it is likely to cause confusion with Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC's trademark, considering factors such as industry similarity and potential customer confusion. 2. Dilution: The plaintiff claims that Sweet Lorraine's Trademarks are highly renowned and that SLB products have been infringing on them, resulting in dilution by blurring and tarnishment with consumers. The plaintiff alleges intentional infringement to benefit from their reputation, causing irreparable damage to their goodwill and reputation. To prove their case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that their trademark is both famous and distinctive, and that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishing. This requires providing evidence of actual harm to the distinctiveness of their mark or establishing a high likelihood of such harm. 3. False Designation of Origin: The plaintiff alleges that SLB's use of the name falsely designates the origin of its products, causing confusion among consumers about the source of the goods. They assert that the use of the name misleads consumers into believing that the products offered by SLB are associated with Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. The plaintiff will need to prove that SLB's use of the name misleads consumers about the source of the products and believes the two are associated with each other. The plaintiff is arguing that SLB's use of the name is misleading customers into thinking that the products offered by SLB are associated with Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, which is not the case. 4. Common Law Trademark Infringement- The Complaint alleges trademark infringement by SLB, claiming that their use of the name infringes on Sweet Lorraine's Systems. Sweet Lorraine's Trademarks have a reputation for quality and excellence. SLB is accused of misleading the public and engaging in unfair competition. To assess the claim, it is necessary to establish Sweet Lorraine's common law trademark rights. This involves examining SLB's use of the trademark in commerce, its secondary meaning among consumers, and any evidence of confusion in the marketplace. The likelihood of confusion will be a critical factor in evaluating the claim. 5. Unfair Competition : The complaint alleges that SLB's use of the disputed name has resulted in unfair competition by causing confusion among consumers and negatively affecting Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC's business interests. The plaintiff claims that this confusion has led to a likelihood of deception, mistake, and difficulty for consumers in distinguishing between the two businesses, causing harm to the plaintiff's reputation. In order to prove their claim, the plaintiff will need to provide evidence showing that SLB's actions 10

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 have caused or are likely to cause confusion among consumers, which could potentially damage the plaintiff's business reputation or goodwill. This evidence must demonstrate that SLB's use of the trademark has created a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers regarding the source of the goods or services being offered. Additionally, the plaintiff must be able to show that they have suffered actual or potential harm to their business due to SLB's use of the trademark. 3.Defenses to the claims: 1.Trademark Infringements claim: The argument can be made that there is no likelihood of confusion between the defendant's and SLB’s marks among the relevant consumers, thus no infringement has taken place. Factors considered are the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, the strength of the plaintiff's mark, and evidence of confusion. It is important to note that the likelihood of confusion must exist in the marketplace, as similarities alone are not sufficient to prove confusion. The strength of evidence proving the absence of confusion determines the strength of this defense. 2. Dilution: One defense is to contest the fame or distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark. This can be done by providing evidence that the plaintiff's mark is not widely recognized or lacks inherent distinctiveness, which weakens the merit of a dilution claim. No Actual Dilution or Likelihood of Dilution: Defense: Another defense is to argue that there is no evidence of actual dilution or a likelihood of dilution in the future. This can be supported by showing the absence of harm to the plaintiff's mark or the absence of factors indicating a dilution. Differentiation in Products or Services: Defense: Emphasizing the differences in products or services offered by Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC can be a strong defense. This can be supported by providing evidence of distinct markets, customer bases, and the dissimilarity of goods and services offered by each business. 3.False Designation of Origin: For this claim we will argue that the statements made about the origin of goods or services are truthful and accurate. demonstrate that there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source of the goods or services, I can show that the use is non-commercial or not in connection with the sale of goods or services. 4.Common trademark infringement: Regarding the geographic distinction, it can be emphasized that there are clear geographic distinctions between the businesses to reduce the likelihood of confusion about the origin of their respective products. As for the supporting evidence, evidence can be provided of the localized nature of Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC's operations, and the absence of overlap with Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC. Clear evidence can be presented to show that there is no confusion between the two businesses, and that they operate in different regions. This will help establish that there is no likelihood of confusion among customers regarding their products' origin. 5. Unfair competition: We can argue that Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC has always conducted its business with transparency, honesty, and ethical standards. The company has always followed industry regulations and standards and has never engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or unethical business practices. As for the supporting evidence, we can present proof of the company's compliance with regulations and standards, including truthful marketing practices. The company has always been transparent in its dealings with customers and has never engaged in any shady business practices. Furthermore, we can assert that there was no intent to deceive consumers or engage in unfair competition. Sweet Lorraine's Bakery has always conducted its business operations with good faith and without any malicious intent to harm competitors or deceive the public. We can also argue that both businesses can coexist in the market 11

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 without causing any harm to the plaintiff's business. There is a peaceful coexistence between the two businesses, and there is no confusion among customers. Additionally, there is no negative impact on market share or reputation. Next Steps: The first thing we will do is file a motion to remove the case from the Michigan State court to the Federal Court. Then our next steps in this process will include:  Investigation - We will investigate how to obtain necessary proof to find supporting evidence for your side of the argument.  Pleadings - Both parties will file pleadings that explain the basic arguments of each side, this will include two parts, the complaint and answer. The plaintiff has already filed the complaint, now we must file an answer to the allegations they are alleging.  Discovery- This is the part of the process that each side will discover as much information about the case. This involves legal research, reviewing the documents, interviewing witnesses, and more. This is usually the longest part of the case and will last all the way up to the trial. Depositions are conducted during this stage and obtaining witnesses. Motions are also filed.  Pre-trial- This stage is where meetings and negotiations are held between attorneys for both sides of the case. Many times, settlements are reached during this process.  Trial- If a settlement isn't reached the trial will begin where both sides argue their case before the court. We believe the plaintiff's claims may not have sufficient legal basis, as there are differences between the two entities that should be considered. We also believe that we have a strong defense against the plaintiff's allegations, and we will work to gather evidence to support this defense. We understand the importance of this matter and are committed to providing you with the best legal representation. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Howard, Attorney Lhoward@howardmills.com 256-458-4541 3233 Bryant Road, NC. 35064 12

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Portfolio Part 3 Predictive Memo 13

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 M emo To: Lisa Howard, Attorney From: Kristine Hubbert , Paralegal Date: 11/28/2023 Re: SLB-Removal to Federal Court- Predictive Memo Facts: Eight months ago, our client Christine Donnelly reached out, concerned about a potential trademark infringement lawsuit that she has been threatened with. Mrs. Donnelly owns Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery (SLB), a family-owned business located in Charlotte, North Carolina, that specializes in French and Italian-inspired pastries, cakes, cookies and artisan breads. They run one physical store location and have a website for informational purposes, but no online business operations. Advertising primarily occurs through the bakery's website, Facebook page, Twitter account, and word of mouth. the client received an email from Greg Sawyer who along with his wife, runs Sweet Lorraine’s Café and Bar in Detroit, specializing in American fare and featuring some baked goods. Sweet Lorraine’s Café and Bar has a website through which they sell salad dressings and apparel items nationally. The Sawyers also own "Sweet Lorraine’s Mac n’ Cheez Kitchen," establishments with two locations in Detroit suburbs. They are looking into extending that franchise into North Carolina, no location has been determined. Mr. Sawyer has contacted SLB regarding their usage of the name "Sweet Lorraine’s," He claims that SLB's use of the name infringes upon his trademark for restaurants, catering, and baking services. Mr. Sawyer has threatened legal action against SLB if they do not change their business name. They own a trademark for the phrase "Sweet Lorraine’s" for restaurants, catering, and baking services across the United States, verified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We recommended that the 14

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 client not change the name of her business and to stand firm. Two months ago, she received an email from Attorney Marsha Jabber, the attorney for the Sawyers, and attached was a Summons and Complaint against SLB filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan. The client nor any of the employees of SLB was served the summons personally, as no attempt was made at legitimate service of process. The attorney for Mr. Sawyer has wrongly filed this lawsuit in the Michigan State Court and not the federal district court. Question Presented: 1. What is our burden on a motion to remove to federal court? (What must we prove?) 2. Can we meet our burden of proof, is so how? (will we be successful and why?) Short Answer? 1. We must prove the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Yes, Federal courts have jurisdiction over trademark claims. Analysis: The Lanham Act is a federal law that governs the registration and protection of trademarks. It grants jurisdiction to federal courts over claims related to trademarks, rather than state courts. Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441, defendants have the right to remove any civil action from a state court to a federal court if the case involves the US Constitution or a federal statute, and if there is diversity jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy is at least $75,000. the Lanham Act and the removal provisions under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 is highly relevant to our case involving Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. Given that the dispute involves allegations of trademark infringement, the Lanham Act is likely to be a central legal basis for our case. In our case, where Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC are in different states (North Carolina and Michigan, respectively), and the potential financial stakes exceed 15

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 $75,000, diversity jurisdiction is a relevant factor supporting our motion to remove. The Lanham Act's federal nature and the removal provisions under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 align with our strategy to aggressively defend SLB’s, providing the federal legal framework for trademark claims, and the removal provisions reinforce our ability to move the case to a federal court. To remove a civil action under U.S.C. Code §1446 , a filing must be made within 30 days of receiving a complaint. The federal court requires the submission of documents that include a brief statement explaining the grounds for removal, along with copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served to the defendant. Additionally, a copy of the notice must be filed with the state court and all other parties involved must be notified of the removal. The removal of a civil action under 28 U.S.C. Code §1446 is relevant to our case involving Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. The process outlined aligns with our strategy to move the case from the Michigan State court to the Federal Court. In the case of Passalacqua Corp V. Restaurant Management II , Passalacqua Corp was known as “Mario’s” in Detroit, Michigan. Restaurant Management II operates under the trade name “East Side Mario’s” an Italian Restaurant franchise. Mario's claimed that the presence of a similar name— specifically, "East Side Mario's" caused confusion among consumers and adversely affected its business and reputation. The defendant removed the case to federal court, contending that federal trademark law applies, particularly highlighting the registration of "East Side Mario's" as a service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1989. The case established that federal district courts have the original jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases affecting the removal of cases to federal court. Passalacqua Corp. v. Rest. Mgmt. II, 885 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. Mich. 1995) The legal case of Gully v. First Nat. Ban k provides insights into the principles governing the removal of cases from state court to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. In this case, State Tax Collector Gully sued the First National Bank in Meridian to recover state taxes owed by an insolvent 16

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 national bank. The case was initially in state court but moved to federal court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that federal jurisdiction was not called for because the dispute did not involve essential elements under the Constitution or U.S. laws. As a result, the Court reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit and instructed it to be remanded to the state court. The key criterion was the absence of a federal right or immunity as an essential element in the cause of action. To remove a case from state court to federal court, the defendant must prove that the action "arises under" the Constitution or laws of the United States. The general approach for deciding whether a claim falls under federal law involves examining the plaintiff's complaint through the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, as established in Gully v. First Nat'l Bank. According to this rule, the court assesses whether the federal question is presented in the face of the plaintiff's complaint, rather than arising as a defense or counterclaim. The "well-pleaded complaint" rule is relevant to our case strategy for Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, where we are seeking removal to federal court based on the federal nature of trademark law, specifically the Lanham Act. In the Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC case, the federal question arises from the trademark dispute, and we aim to demonstrate that this federal question is inherent in SLB's business practices as outlined in the complaint. Like Gully, our argument for removal is centered on the fact that the federal question (trademark infringement under the Lanham Act) is evident on the face of the complaint. This aligns with the "well- pleaded complaint" rule and supports our contention that federal jurisdiction is appropriate. In our case, we are considering diversity of citizenship as one of the arguments for removal. This case emphasizes the importance of meeting the criteria for diversity jurisdiction when seeking removal. GM Co. v. Dinatale provides insights into the principles of diversity jurisdiction, the importance of assessing authority at the time of removal, and the impact of next events on jurisdictional determinations. These considerations are relevant as we formulate our arguments for removal in the Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery LLC case. Conclusion 17

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 The lawsuit filed against Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) for trademark infringement has similarities to the Gully v. First National Bank case, where federal authority played a crucial role. Gully established that for removal to federal court, a federal right or immunity is needed. SLB's argument for removal is based on the principles of Gully, asserting that trademark law, particularly the Lanham Act, is a federal issue that justifies removal. The "well-pleaded complaint" rule from Gully guides SLB's argument for federal jurisdiction, which focuses on the plaintiff's complaint's presence of a federal question. The importance of meeting criteria, such as diversity jurisdiction at the time of removal, is highlighted in GM Co. v. Dinatale. These precedents provide valuable insights and strategies for SLB as they try to move the case to federal court while addressing the jurisdictional elements of the trademark dispute 18

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant(s). ) OF CIVIL ACTION Notice of Remova l I, Lisa Howard , on behalf of the defendant, Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "SLB"), hereby submit this Motion to Remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. This motion seeks the removal of the above-mentioned case from the Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Grounds for Removal 1. Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery LLC the Defendant in the civil action brought on December 20,2023 in the Wayne County Circuit Court. copy of the Complaint and Summons is attached as Exhibit A12345. 2. This case involves a federal question arising under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114), which governs trademark claims. The Plaintiff, Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, asserts claims related to trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, common law trademark 19

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 infringement, and unfair competition. Given the federal nature of the Lanham Act, federal jurisdiction is appropriate for the resolution of these claims. 3. The Lanham Act provides the federal legal framework for trademark claims, and the claims asserted by the Plaintiff fall within the federal statute. As such, this Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions. 4. There is a diversity of citizenship issues between the parties, as SLB is a North Carolina resident, and the Plaintiff is a Michigan resident. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, satisfying the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 13 5. This notice of removal is filed within 30 days of receipt of the initial pleadings and is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, SLB respectfully requests the removal of this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The federal nature of the Lanham Act's claims and the diversity of citizenship between the parties provide a sound basis for removal. R espectfully submitted, Lisa Howard, 552121 Lhoward@hmills.com Howard and Mills Law Firm Attorney for Defendant Sweet Loraine’s Bakery, LLC 20

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, ) ATTORNEY AFFIDAVITT Defendant(s). ) ATTORNEY AFFIDAVITT I, Lisa Howard, an attorney and authorized representative of Ms. Christine Donnelly, the defendant in the above captioned action, hereby swears and affirms: 1. I am employed as an attorney of Howard and Mills, the law firm representing the defendant. I am a competent person over 18 years of age and authorized to make this sworn statement. 2. I am the defendant’s attorney in the above-entitled action and respectfully request that the court issue an order to remove this case from State Court and move the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 3. The defendant, Ms. Christine Donnelly, has been served the Complaint and Summons and she has not filed or served an answer or other response pleading. 4. Defendant was served the complaint by the plaintiff’s attorney, Marsha Jabber, via email. 21

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 5. I respectfully request the court issue an order to remove the case from state court to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan. 6. The basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 7. Defendant denies all claims in complaint. 8. The calculation of attorney fees and legal basis for awarding attorney fees, if any are as follows: 9. The total amount is no more than 15% of the total principal and interest. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Howard, 552121 Lhoward@hmills.com Howard and Mills Law Firm 2021 Bryant Road, North Carolina 20231 Attorney for Defendant Sweet Loraine’s Bakery, LLC 22

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, ) Supporting Brief Defendant(s). ) Support of Motion Introduction This case involves a federal question arising under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114), which governs trademark claims. The Plaintiff, Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, asserts claims related to trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Given the federal nature of the Lanham Act, federal jurisdiction is appropriate for the resolution of these claims. Facts The defendant, Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, located Charlotte, North Carolina, received an email from Mr. Greg Sawyer, owner of Sweet Lorraine's Café and Bar in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Sawyer claimed a potential trademark infringement with the phrase "Sweet Lorraine's.", he threatened legal action unless our client changed the name of her business or ceased the use of the trademark phrase. Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC. After advising against changing the name, the client received an email from Mr. Sawyer's attorney, Marsha Jabber, with a summons and complaint filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan. The lawsuit was mistakenly filed in state court instead of federal district court. Argument  Federal Jurisdiction: 23

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Under U.S.C.S. § 144 1, defendants have the power to move a civil case from a state court to a federal court if the case involves the US Constitution or a federal statute, In our case involving Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, the Lanham Act, a federal law governing trademark, and the removal provisions under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 are highly relevant. n our situation, the Lanham Act is the federal statute at play, reinforcing our legal grounds for removal. The Lanham Act provides federal jurisdiction over trademark-related matters. It grants federal courts the authority to resolve claims involving trademarks, trade dress, false advertising, and unfair competition. claims arising under federal law, specifically, trademark infringement claims governed. The Lanham Act is the federal statute at play, reinforcing our legal grounds for removal.  Diversity of Citizenship The Passalacqua Corp v. Restaurant Management II clearly establishes that federal district courts have original jurisdiction in such cases, the defendant successfully removed the case to federal court, emphasizing the federal nature of trademark law. This supports the argument that federal courts have jurisdiction over trademark disputes, reinforcing the removal to Federal court. For diversity jurisdiction to apply, there must be complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. This means that no plaintiff should be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. In our case, where Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC are in different states (North Carolina and Michigan), and the potential financial stakes exceed $75,000, diversity jurisdiction is a relevant factor supporting our motion to remove The diversity jurisdiction criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 are met in our case, as SLB and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC are in different states and the financial stakes exceed $75,000. Considering these factors, we believe that transferring the case to a federal court is the most appropriate course of action, and we urge you to support our motion for transfer. 24

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 The ruling in Gully v. First Nat . Ban k by the Supreme Court carries significant weight in deciding the jurisdiction of a federal court. This ruling emphasizes that a plaintiff's cause of action must involve a federal right or immunity for federal jurisdiction to be warranted. In our case, the plaintiff's claims are based on the Lanham Act, which is a federal law that governs trademarks. This makes it the federal right that justifies the removal of the case to a federal court. The motion to remove the case of Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC (Plaintiff) v. Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (Defendant) from state to federal court is built on a strong foundation of legal principles and strategic considerations. By relying on established legal precedents, such as Passalacqua Corp V. Restaurant Management II, we highlight the federal nature of trademark disputes and the appropriateness of federal courts for their resolution. The case law we cite clearly establishes federal district courts' original jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases, making a strong case for seeking a federal forum. This argument is further reinforced by the federal framework established by the Lanham Act, which governs trademarks at the federal level. Moreover, the diversity of citizenship analysis supports our argument for removal, as the parties involved are from different states, meeting the criteria for diversity jurisdiction. The success of Passalacqua Corp i n removing a similar case from federal court further strengthens the validity of this legal strategy. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Howard, 552121 Lhoward@hmills.com Howard and Mills Law Firm 2021 Bryant Road, North Carolina 20231 Attorney for Defendant Sweet Loraine’s Bakery, LLC 25

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Portfolio – FINAL EXAM 26

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, ) Answer to the Complaint Defendant(s). ) HEREIN, Christine Donnelly, will be known as the Defendant, respectfully answers the following:  The Defendant admits to the allegations that are set forth in paragraph 1. Under the laws of the state of Michigan, the Plaintiff is organized and existing.  The Defendant denies part of the allegations in paragraph 2. The defendant is not organized under the New York State laws. The Defendant operates in North Carolina.  The Defendant admits to the allegations in paragraph 3. This is a complaint for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.  The Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4, 5, and 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 giving federal jurisdiction over this matter.  The Defendant lacks enough information to form a belief on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The Defendant was not aware of the Plaintiff’s business in Michigan when the Defendant opened her doors. The Defendant was not aware of the trademark of “Sweet Lorraine’s.” The Defendant was also not aware of any advertising from the Plaintiff’s business.  The Defendant denies the allegations that were in paragraphs 14 and 15. The Defendant has only been operating for 8 months now, in the state of North Carolina. 27

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235  The Defendant admits the allegations that are in paragraph 16. The Defendant was not aware of the name “Sweet Lorraine’s” that is in the state of Michigan.  The Defendant denies the allegations that are in paragraphs 17, 18, and 19. The Plaintiff directly contacted the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s attorney emailed the complaint to the Defendant. The Defendant does not sell any products on her online website or through social media. The Defendant was also not aware at the time of “Sweet Lorraine’s” in the state of Michigan. The Plaintiff does not operate in the state of North Carolina. The Defendant is an established business so there will be no confusion.  The Defendant lacks enough information to form a belief on the allegations that are set forth in paragraphs 20, 20, and 22. The Defendant was not aware of the Plaintiff’s business at the time. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT – 15 U.S.C. § 1114 The Plaintiff did not supply sufficient evidence to support a cause of action as per 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The Plaintiff's business is not a well-known or famous name, and the people in North Carolina, where the Defendant's business is located, have no knowledge of the Plaintiff's business. Moreover, as the Plaintiff's business location is over 600 miles away from the Defendant's business, there is no sign of any confusion between the two. Additionally, the Defendant and the Plaintiff are not competitors, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant has suffered any damage. And the Defendant has not violated 15 U.S.C. § 1114. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (C) The plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) cannot be sustained because they did not show that their mark is famous, distinctive, inherently, or through acquired distinctiveness. Additionally, they failed to 28

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 show that the defendant's use of their own name is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment of the plaintiff's famous mark. Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (C) (2) (A) i, ii, and iii, the plaintiff could not prove that their mark is indeed famous. The fact that the plaintiff's mark is not even known within the State of North Carolina further weakens their case. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION-FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN The plaintiff failed in stating a valid legal claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as the defendant did not use any false designation of origin. The defendant set up their own business and reputation without any wrongful conduct, and there is no sign that the customers of both businesses would be confused. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff did not suffer any damages in this situation. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S STATE OF MICHIGAN COMMON LAW GROUNDS The Defendant's business is solely located in North Carolina and has never engaged in any business activities in Michigan. The State of Michigan lacks personal authority over the Defendant, Michigan's common law is not relevant to this case. WHEREFORE, I, Lisa Howard, on behalf of the Defendant pray the court to levy sanctions against the Attorney of the petitioner and exclusion of this document piece of evidence from the trial in accordance with the above-mentioned Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Dated 12/14/2023 . Attorney Lisa Howard Attorney for Defendant 29

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Final Exam: REQUEST FOR INSPECTION 30

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, ) REQUEST FOR INSPECTION Defendant(s). ) REQUEST FOR INSPECTION Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 34 - Request for Inspection and Rule 37(d) (1)(A)(ii) Failure to Respond to a Request for Inspection. The defendant by counsel requests Plaintiff to produce the documents specified below, within thirty (30) days of service, to Lisa Howard, Esq., or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties; such Plaintiff’s production of documents shall be in accordance with the instructions, definitions, and dictates, which are set forth below. 1. Any and all statements of the client, Christine Donnelly and/or any principal, agent, employee or representative or anyone thought to be a principal, agent, employee or representative of SLB. 2. All communications, including emails, letters, or memoranda, between Christine Donnelly and third parties regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit. 31

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 3. Documents related to the registration and use of the trademark in question by Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. 4. Financial records reflecting any damages claimed by Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. 5. Marketing materials, advertisements, or promotional items related to the trademark in dispute. 6. Any emails, letters, memos, or other communications involving Christine Donnelly in relation to SLB, its trademarks, or the subject matter of this litigation 7. Financial statements, accounting records, and other financial documents related to SLB's business activities. 8. Copies of any and all statements made by Christine Donnelly, whether written or recorded, pertaining to Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC (SLB) 9. Calculation of the damages claimed in each category. Additionally, documents and evidence used for these calculations, including materials related to the extent of their injuries. 10. All the names, contact number, address and statements of the witnesses that may have discoverable information the plaintiff plans on using. Dated 12/14/2023. Attorney Lisa Howard Attorney for Defendant 32

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Final Exam Trial Brief Motion to Exclude 33

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN EASTERN DIVISION S weet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, ) Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 21762023 v. ) Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, ) Trial Brief to Exclude Evidence Defendant(s). ) TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Introduction Defendant, Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC requests the court to grant summary judgement under the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) These charges in the lawsuit against Defendant Sweet Lisa’s Bakery, LLC are on taken merits of actions to Trademark Infringement and Dilution of their Mark to run and sell goods and services such as restaurant, catering, and to produce baking services. These alleged claims against the Defendant shall form the will to follow due process, discovery, and the judicial outcomes by trier-of-fact and trier-of-law, accordingly. Statement of Facts My client (Christine Donnelly,) owner of Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC received an email from Mr. Greg Sawyer, demanding my client stop using the name “Sweet Lorraine’s. Mr. Sawyer is the owner of Sweet Lorraine’s Café and Bar, in Detroit Michigan is claiming a potential trademark infringement with the phrase “Sweet Lorraine's”. Mr. Sawyer has a trademark on the phrase "Sweet Lorraine's" for all restaurants, catering, and baking services in the United States. .The trademark has been confirmed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He threatened legal action against our client unless she changes the name of her business or ceases the use of the trademark phrase. Sweet Lorraine's 34

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 Bakery, LLC ("SLB") is a family-owned business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. They specialize in French and Italian-inspired pastries, cakes, cookies, and artisan breads. SLB operates a store location and has a website, Facebook page, and Twitter account for advertising purposes only. Mr. Sawyer and his wife are also venturing into franchising macaroni and cheese establishments called "Sweet Lorraine's Mac n' Cheez Kitchen." They currently have two locations in Detroit suburbs and have received interest from an individual in North Carolina about extending their franchise into the state. The client reached out wanting advice on whether they should change the name of the business or stand firm, we recommended that she not change the name, and to stand firm. Two months later, she received an email from Marsha Jabber an attorney for Sawyer’s, with a Summons and Complaint against SLB that was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in the state of Michigan. It appears that counsel for Mr. Sawyer has wrongly filed the lawsuit in Michigan State Court, not in federal district court. Mrs. Donnelly nor any employees of the client was personally served with the Summons and Complaint. ARGUMENT According to USCS Fed Rules of Civ Proc Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) , the plaintiff was compelled to disclose the statement of Christine Donnelly. Additionally, per USCS Fed Rules of Civ Proc Rule 34 (b)(2)(A ), the plaintiff had thirty days to reveal the statement, despite having it in their possession for several months. However, the plaintiff did not disclose the statement until one week before the trial, which is considered a violation of their duty to disclose. USCS Fed Rules of Civ Proc Rule 37(C) (1) holds: “Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless ….” There is justification for the plaintiff’s action and the plaintiff’s failure to abide by the rules of discovery is not harmless. The statement should be excluded. 35

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Kristine Hubbert Portfolio Project PLEG 235 USCS Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 34 (a)(4) , any evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response should be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. The plaintiff's behavior of waiting until just one week before the trial to turn over the defendant's statements is considered evasive and an incomplete disclosure. This kind of tactic is not in compliance with the Rules of Discovery and could be considered a failure to disclose. The plaintiff's intention to use the statement to surprise the defendant during the trial is improper and unfair. USCS Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(C)(1), if a party does not provide required information or identify a witness as per Rule 26(a) or (e), the party cannot use that information or witness to supply evidence at a hearing, motion, or trial, unless the failure was justified or harmless. In this case, the plaintiff's failure to abide by the rules of discovery is not harmless, and their sole intention seems to be attacking the defendant. Therefore, there is justification for the defendant's action, and the statement should be excluded. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, the Defendant requests that all statements made by Debbie Dyer, that the Plaintiff did not disclose, be excluded from trial. Dated 12/14/2023. Lisa Howard Attorney for Defendant 36

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

PLEG235 FINAL SUBMISSION

Related Documents