Buffalo Niagara Chauffeured Services, Inc. v. Magic Mist Limousine Service
1:12-cv-00681
W.D.N.Y.Oct 22, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Buffalo Niagara Chauffeured Services, Inc. sued in July 2012 alleging unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act and NY law against Magic Mist and related entities.
- Amended complaint added James Leehan d/b/a Magic Mist Limo, Buffalo Airport Limousine, Niagara Falls Shuttle, Niagara Wine Tours, and Aces Limousine Service, Inc.
- January 2013 settlements/dismissals: Plaintiff and Leehan dismissed; Leehan agreed to cease confusing designations and remove buffaloairportlimo site, with permission to direct to magicmistlimo for 30 days.
- Separate stipulation with Aces required immediate and permanent cessation of business contact with Leehan in NY and cessation of use of designations confusingly similar to BUFFALO LIMO; court retained jurisdiction over compliance.
- Plaintiff later alleged Aces’ actions violated the stipulation by purchasing Leehan’s Magic Mist website and assisting Leehan’s operation; Aces claimed no ongoing violation as Leehan’s business had ceased.
- Court addressed whether to enforce the stipulation, finding breach occurred but denying permanent injunction and attorneys’ fees; motion to enforce denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is enforcement of the stipulation within the court’s jurisdiction? | Plaintiff contends the stipulation includes ongoing jurisdiction for enforcement. | Aces contends lacking authority to enforce through a motion to enforce. | Yes, court has jurisdiction to enforce. |
| Did Aces breach the Stipulation by engaging with Leehan to promote a NY limousine service? | Aces’ actions, including purchasing Leehan’s website, violated the stipulation. | Aces argues no ongoing violation since Leehan’s business ended. | Yes, breach found. |
| Should the court grant a permanent injunction against Aces? | Injunction would deprive Aces of benefits from the violation. | No specific showing of irreparable harm or ongoing misuse. | No permanent injunction warranted. |
| Are attorneys’ fees or sanctions warranted for bad-faith enforcement? | Plaintiff seeks fees for enforcement against bad-faith conduct. | Aces argues for sanctions if improper purpose proven. | Denied both fees and sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (retention of ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement)
- Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (no motion to enforce in rules; enforcement by other means)
- Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1974) (courts may enforce settlements by various means)
- United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2000) (clear showing of bad faith required for inherent-authority sanctions)
- Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2000) (high bar for imposing inherent-authority sanctions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent authority to assess attorneys’ fees for misconduct)