Media Lab, Inc. v. Collis

5:08-cv-04732

N.D. Cal.

Sep 1, 2009

Check Treatment

Docket

MEDIA LAB, INC., Plaintiff, v. LAURA COLLIS dba LC INTERNET MARKETING dba LC INTERNET MARKETING, LLC dba GOINGTOCALIFORNIA.COM dba CALIFORNIA-AMUSEMENT-PARKS.COM, Defendants.

No. C08-04732 HRL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

September 1, 2009

NOT FOR CITATION; *E-FILED 9/1/2009*

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED

[Re: Docket No. 44]

Plaintiff Media Lab, Inc. (“Media Lab“) moves for an order deeming matters admitted. Defendant Laura Collis failed to file any papers in response and did not appear at the motion hearing. Upon consideration of the moving papers, as well as the discussion held at the September 1, 2009 hearing, this court grants the motion.

This is an action for alleged cybersquatting (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)), trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), conversion and fraud. Media Lab says that it sells discounted theme park tickets through various branded internet websites and also derives income from advertisements purchased by its ticket vendors on Media Lab‘s websites. In October 2000, Media Lab reportedly hired one John Robert Shoffner¹ as an independent contractor to design and maintain its websites. According to Media Lab, defendant Collis has known Shoffner for over a decade. It claims that she conspired with him to create competing discount ticket sale websites with domain names confusingly similar to plaintiff‘s.

On March 31, 2009, plaintiff served by mail several requests for admission (“RFA“) on Collis. Her responses were due by May 4, 2009. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a)(3); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), (d). Collis failed to respond at all. Throughout the month of May 2009, plaintiff sent Collis no less than four meet-and-confer letters in an attempt to resolve the matter without court intervention. Each letter advised Collis that her failure to respond resulted in her admission as to the matters stated in each RFA. Collis failed to respond to any of these letters. Plaintiff‘s counsel says that, at around this same time, he also left a voicemail message as to her failure to respond to plaintiff‘s RFAs. He never received a response to that voicemail. (Rosenfeld Decl., ¶ 12).

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the matters requested are automatically deemed admitted. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.“). “A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b). Collis has made no such motion; and, as discussed above, she failed to respond to the instant motion and did not appear at the hearing.

Accordingly, by operation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3), Collis’ failure to timely respond to those RFAs resulted in automatic admission of the matters requested.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2009

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5:08-cv-4732 Notice electronically mailed to:

Henry M. Burgoyne , III hank@kronenbergerlaw.com, ecf@kronenbergerlaw.com

Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld Jeff@kronenbergerlaw.com

Karl Stephen Kronenberger karl@kronenbergerlaw.com, ecf@kronenbergerlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court‘s CM/ECF program.

5:08-cv-4732 Notice mailed to:

Laura Collis
800 Plaza Mar
Chula Vista, CA 91910

Pro Se Defendant

Notes

Shoffner is not a party to the instant action.