Dominic's Restaurant of Dayton v. Christie Mantia
683 F.3d 757
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Dominic’s Foods of Dayton and Anne Mantia sued to protect Dominic’s marks and name from alleged infringement by Christie Mantia, Powers, and Lee after they opened Dominic’s Restaurant, Inc.
- The district court issued a TRO and later a preliminary injunction enjoining use of the Dominic’s marks and related conduct; contempt motions followed for continued infringement.
- The court found repeated infringing conduct before and after TRO, then closed the restaurant and required menu restrictions; later contempt for unapproved menu and website content.
- Powers filed bankruptcy (initially Chapter 13), and the bankruptcy stay was invoked as a defense to continued contempt; the district court rejected the stay as a shield against injunctive relief.
- The bankruptcy proceedings evolved: Powers dismissed Chapter 13, filed Chapter 7; the appellate question became whether the automatic stay precludes continued contempt proceedings for a tort such as trademark infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the automatic bankruptcy stay preclude contempt proceedings? | Powers’ bankruptcy stay shields him from ongoing contempt. | Bankruptcy stay does not bar injunctive relief or contempt for torts. | No; stay does not preclude contempt or injunctive relief. |
| Is a debtor’s use of property to commit a tort protected from the stay? | Continued use infringes plaintiffs’ rights. | The stay protects debtor’s property, potentially halting proceedings. | Stay does not bar contempt where tort is ongoing. |
| Does the court have inherent power to enforce its orders despite bankruptcy? | Court must prevent violations of its orders. | Bankruptcy should shield debtor from post-petition enforcement. | Courts may enforce orders notwithstanding bankruptcy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travel Agent Antitrust Litig. v. Association of Travel Agents, 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009) (stay-related tolling and breadth of stay analysis in antitrust context)
- Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (statutory stay does not bar injunctive relief for pre-petition orders)
- NLRB v. Edward Cooper Painting, Inc., 804 F.2d 934 (6th Cir. 1986) (courts decide stay applicability; injunctive relief may proceed)
- Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1979) (property rights in bankruptcy not extend to tortious conduct)
- Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (bankruptcy stay does not free debtor from injunctions)