GS Holistic, LLC v. M.W. & Sons, Inc.GS Holistic, LLC v. M.W. & Sons, Inc.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants M&W Sons, Inc. (“M.W“), Mahmoud Wahdan (“Mahmoud“), and Moneer Wahdan (“Moneer“) (Summary Judgment Motion, Doc. #70), and Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court‘s May 26, 2026, Order. (Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. #66). In the Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants argue that claims against Mahmoud and Moneer should be dismissed with prejudice, because the strict liability imposed for violations of the
Defendants further argue that, were this Court to find liability and impose damages upon M&W, those damages should be limited to the statutory minimum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), as Plaintiff‘s actual damages according to its expert are $607.85. (Doc. #70, PAGEID 480-86, citing
Moreover, Defendants note that Plaintiff, as a company, actually operated at a loss in 2025 and has submitted no evidence that it earned any profit from the sale of Stundenglass-branded waterpipes. Consequently, Defendants claim, an award of even nominal damages is improper, since Plaintiff suffered no harm from any negligent infringement by Defendants of Plaintiff‘s trademark. (Doc.
On February 6, 2026, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order. (Doc. #50). Therein, the Court set a deadline for filing motions for summary judgment of July 1, 2026, (id. at PAGEID 421), with which Defendants complied. (Doc. #70). The Court set a deadline for filing any memorandum contra such a motion of July 15, 2026. (Doc. #50, PAGEID 421). While a party in this Court normally has twenty-one days to file a memorandum contra any motion for summary judgment, S.D. OHIO CIV.R. 7.2(a)(2), the Court, as part of its inherent authority to manage its docket, has significant discretion to shorten or lengthen deadlines. See, e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016), citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.“); McLaurin v. Terminix Int‘l Co., L.P., 13 F.4th 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2021) (district court‘s implementation of scheduling order is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
This case has been pending for almost three years, and Plaintiff has been on notice of the expedited briefing schedule for more than five months. Moreover, Plaintiff demonstrated its awareness of the case deadlines when counsel for Plaintiff participated in a conference call with the undersigned on June 11, 2026, one day before the discovery cutoff (Doc. #50, PAGEID 421), to request to
“The Sixth Circuit has consistently explained that failure by a party to respond to a motion for summary judgment constitutes a forfeiture of the claims to which the motion is addressed.” Navarro v. Procter & Gamble Co., 515 F. Supp. 3d 718, 775 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (Cole, J.) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); quoting Rogers v. Mich. Dep‘t of Corr., No. 1:17-cv-383, 2019 WL 1388677, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2019); citing Notredan, L.L.C. v. Old Republic Exch. Facilitator Co., 531 Fed. App‘x 567, 569 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Brown v. VHS of Mich., Inc., 545 Fed. App‘x 368, 372 (6th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases) (“This Court‘s jurisprudence on abandonment of claims is clear: a plaintiff is deemed to have abandoned a claim when a plaintiff fails to address it in response to a motion for summary judgment.“); Humphrey v. United States Atty. Gen.‘s Office, 279 Fed. App‘x 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted (“if a plaintiff fails to respond or to otherwise oppose a defendant‘s motion, then the district court may deem the plaintiff to have waived opposition to the motion.“).
As Plaintiff failed to respond at all to Defendants’ Motion, which encompasses all claims raised against them, Plaintiff has abandoned all claims against Defendants and forfeited any arguments as to why judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff is not appropriate. Moreover, the undisputed
In sum, Defendants have met their prima facie burden to show no genuine issue of material fact as to Mahmoud and Moneer‘s liability and as to lack of damages suffered by Plaintiff.
The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 20, 2026
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT