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.

GI Sportz, Inc. v. Valken, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 30, 2019

GI SPORTZ, INC. and GI SPORTZ DIRECT, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
VALKEN, INC., Defendant.

          JOHN M. HANAMIRIAN HANAMIRIAN LAW FIRM PC On behalf of Plaintiffs

          ANTHONY J. DIMARINO, III EMMETT STEPHAN COLLAZO A.J. DIMARINO, III, PC On behalf of Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         WHEREAS, before the Court is the motion of Defendant, Valken, Inc., to consolidate three actions pending between Defendant and Plaintiff, GI Sportz, Inc. and GI Sportz Direct, LLC (hereinafter “GI”); and

         WHEREAS, the Federal Civil Procedure Rule governing consolidation of cases provides:

a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:
(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); and

         WHEREAS, Rule 42 supplements the Court's “inherent power to control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65, 80 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations and quotations omitted); and WHEREAS, the mere existence of common issues does not automatically require consolidation, but rather the Court must balance such factors as the interest or efficiency and judicial economy gained through consolidation, against the delay or expense that might result from simultaneous disposition of separate actions, id.; and

         WHEREAS, the actions Valken seeks to consolidate are:

1. This action, 1:16-cv-7170, which concerns Valken's alleged infringement of GI's registered trade dress associated with GI's Marballizer paintballs and a breach of a 2014 settlement agreement regarding those paintballs (“Marballizer case”); and
2. Action 1:17-cv-05040, which concerns GI's claims that Valken's “Code” branded paintball guns infringes three of GI's patents and further infringes the trade dress of GI's Mini and Axe families ...

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.