Free Reply - District Court of California - California


File Size: 538.7 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 842 Words, 5,154 Characters
Page Size: 610.56 x 842.88 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/casd/260280/36.pdf

Download Reply - District Court of California ( 538.7 kB)


Preview Reply - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR

Document 36

Filed 03/13/2008

Page 1 of 3

RONALD MARTINETTI, ESQ. State Bar No.106 898 KAZANJIAN & MARTINETTI 520 East Wilson Avenue Glendale, California 91206 Tel.818-241-1011 FAX 818-241-2193 E-Mail [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Lee's General Toys, Inc., and John Lee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
~ 1III Z -"' (/II-> 11I!t< co o N 0) < Z

"' :> Z

U~ZOa: II. ~ '" i;:~0!!10 ,.II. .J O",-",.J ~~< ~Z..:>U < ~ '" (/I .J-< .'111 Zo ~N NIl! ~ ~

. 111 .J < C Z 111 ~

GEORGIA-P ACIFIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS LP, a Delaware limited partnership,

Plaintiff,

.-) ) ) ) ) ) )
)

CASE. NO.07 (JAH POR)

CY 2391

DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF A. TOWLE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

LEE'S

GENERAL

TOYS,

INC.,

a

corporation,

JOHN

LEE,

an

individual;

California)

and

DOES

1-10,

Defendants.

Defendants Lee's General Toys, Inc. and John Lee respectfully ob_ject the Declaration to of Andrew Towle in Support of Defendants' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the following grounds:..

)

)

)

)

)

)

1

Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR

Document 36

Filed 03/13/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 Nowhere in the declaration is there a showing that the supposedads are directed
1

toward the Southern California Latino market or have aired in Los Angeles where
2

3 4
5 6 7

Defendants' products are largely sold at swap meets. Therefore, the declaration is overbroad, irrelevant, and lacks foundation. 2. Nowhere is there a breakdown of which markets the ads are directed to: Arizona, Texas, and other locations (besides California) that have a substantial number of Spanish speaking or Latino persons. Since a very small amount of money may be allocated to Southern California-e.g., San Diego or Los Angeles,--he declaration is

8
9

10
11
j::: 1III "' Z :l Z -"' 111~< (Q o N m < Z

overbroad, irrelevant, and lacks foundation.
3

The omissions actually support Defendants' position that Plaintiff is only recently trying to break into the Sou!hern California Latino market.

12

13
14

4. Line 18 statesthat California is "home to the largest percentageof Spanish-speaking ANGEL SOFT bathroom tissue customers." This statement by itself is meaningless since there may be two customers and both are in Northern California. Therefore, the statement lacks foundation.

U
~Z;-:lU «In
15 16 17

18 19

Dated: March 12, 2008

KAZANJIAN & MARTINETTI RONALD MARTINETTI, ESQ. By ~ MM1\( 11\ .

20
21

Ronald Martinetti Attorneys for Defendants

22 23 24
25

26 27 28
2
..

Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR

Document 36

Filed 03/13/2008

Page 3 of 3

1

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL -(1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above-entitled action; my business address is 520 E. Wilson Ave., Suite 250, Glendale, California 91206.

2 3

4 5
6
7

On March 13, 2008 I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF A. TOWLE IN SUPPORT OF MOPTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION on all the interested parties in this action as follows: StephenP. Swinton, Esq. Adam A. Welland, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2071 Fax No.: (858) 523-5450 an original MESSENGER;

8 9

10
11

x

a true

copy

12
13

BY PERSONAL DELIVERYNIA

14 15
16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

~y BY ELECTRONIC FILING: I am familiar with the United States District Court, Southern District of California's practice for collecting and processing electronic filings. Under that.practice, documents are electronically filed with the court. The court's CM/ECF system will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the filing party, the assigned judge, and any registered users in the case. The NEF will constitute service of the document. Registration as a CM/ECF user constitutes consent to electronic service through the court's transmission facilities. Under said practice the above mentioned parties were served. -PREP AID POST AGE: I deposited such an envelope in the mail at Glendale, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. u. S. MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with our finn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day on the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of any party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing affidavit.

x BY FACSIMILE: On the interested parties in this action pursuant to C.R.C. RULE 2009 (b). The telephone number of the facsimile machine I used was (818) 241-2193. This facsimile machine complies with Rule 2003 (2) of the California Rules of Court. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. The facsimile machine printed out a record indicating that the transmission was successfully completed.