Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 BRYAN J. SINCLAIR (SBN 205885) Email: [email protected] 2 KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN (SBN 202634) Email: [email protected] 3 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 4 Redwood Shores, California 94065-1418 Telephone: (650) 622-2300 5 Facsimile: (650) 622-2499 6 GEORGE GOTTLIEB (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE) Email: [email protected] 7 MARC P. MISTHAL (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE) Email: [email protected] 8 GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN, P.C. 270 Madison Avenue 9 New York, NY 10016-0601 Telephone: (212) 684-3900 10 Facsimile: (212) 684-3999 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, KNOLL, INC. 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 08-CV-0778-MHP DECLARATION OF KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [Civil L.R. 3-12 and 7-11] Judge: Honorable Marilyn H. Patel Complaint filed: February 1, 2008 Trial date: None Set

15 KNOLL, INC., a Delaware corporation, 16 17 vs. Plaintiff,

18 DANRICK COMMERCE GROUP, LLC a/k/a MODERNCOLLECTIONS.COM, DANNY 19 LOUIE, and DOES A-Z, Retailers for Alphaville Design, Inc., 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECL OF KHACHATOURIAN ISO MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQ. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO.: 08-CV-0778-MHP

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2

I, Karineh Khachatourian, declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of California,

3 and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (hereinafter "Court"). I 4 am special counsel with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney ("Buchanan") in both its San Diego and 5 Silicon Valley offices. I act as local counsel for Plaintiff Knoll, Inc. ("Knoll") in this litigation, 6 along with Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman, P.C., who is lead counsel, and we are both attorneys of 7 record for Knoll. As special counsel and the attorney in charge of this matter at Buchanan, I am 8 familiar with both California cases involving Knoll and Alphaville Design, Inc. If called upon to 9 testify as to the matters set forth herein, I could and would competently testify thereto as the matters 10 set forth herein are personally known to me to be true. I have personal knowledge of the matters set 11 forth herein except as to those matters set forth on information and belief, and as to those I am 12 informed and believe them to be true and could and would competently testify thereto. I submit this 13 declaration in support of Knoll's Miscellaneous Administrative Request to Consider Whether Cases 14 Should be Related. 15 2. On September 7, 2007, Knoll Inc. instituted a trademark infringement action against

16 Moderncollections.com, Danny Louie, and Lisa Kiul in the United States District Court for the 17 Southern District of New York. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Knoll's 18 First Amended Complaint for Trademark Infringement and Related Causes. The complaint alleged, 19 inter alia, infringement of trademarks 2,893,025; 2,894,977; 2,894,980; 2,894,979 and 2,894,978. 20 3. I am informed and believe that Alphaville, while exploring the possibility of

21 settlement with Knoll, filed an action against Knoll for declaratory relief of invalidity and non22 infringement of the trademarks subject to the New York Action (hereinafter referred to as "the 23 Alphaville Action"). 24 4. I am informed and believe that the Court in the New York Action suggested that the

25 parties agree to transfer the action to or Knoll re-file the action in the Northern District of California 26 because the majority of the defendants reside in that jurisdiction and venue. 27 5. I am informed and believe that based on the Court in the New York Action's

28 suggestion, Knoll dismissed the New York Action without prejudice with the intent of re-filing in -1DECL OF KHACHATOURIAN ISO MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQ. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO.: 08-CV-0778-MHP

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and that all parties involved 2 agreed that the New York Action should be consolidated into the Alphaville Action. 3 6. On January 15, 2008, Knoll reasserted its causes of action asserting against

4 Alphaville in the New York Action as counterclaims in the Alphaville Action. See Docket No. 14. 5 Knoll also asserted similar trademark infringement claims against the Lees, Danrick, and Louie that 6 it previously asserted in the New York Action as counterclaims in the Alphaville Action. 7 7. On January 22, 2008, I contacted Philip Green of the Law Offices of Green & Green,

8 counsel for Alphaville, to confirm whether he would accept service on behalf of the Lees, Danrick 9 and Louie. Mr. Green accepted service on behalf of the Lees since they were principals of 10 Alphaville and stated he would not challenge the counterclaim on procedural grounds with respect 11 to the Lees as he agreed they should be part of the same action. However, Mr. Green stated that 12 Neil Smith represented Danrick and Louie, as he did previously in the New York action and I would 13 need to contact him. 14 8. On January 22, 2008, I contacted Neil Smith to inquire whether he represented

15 Danrick and Louie and whether he would accept service on their behalf. Mr. Smith advised me that 16 he did not know and would get back to me. 17 9. On January 23, 2008, I sent Mr. Smith an email requesting that he confirm whether

18 he was authorized to accept service on behalf of Danrick and Louie. Mr. Smith did not respond to 19 that email. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the email that I sent to Mr. 20 Smith. 21 10. Since I did not hear from Mr. Smith, to preserve its rights against Danrick and Louie,

22 on February 1, 2008, Knoll filed a separate action against Danrick and Louie in the Northern 23 District for California, Case No. CV-08-0778 MHP (hereinafter referred to as "the Danrick 24 Action"), wherein Knoll reasserted claims that were substantially similar to those originally brought 25 in the New York Action and those asserted as counterclaims in the Alphavilee Action. 26 11. After the Danrick Action was filed and served on the corporate defendant, Mr. Smith

27 called me to inquire why Knoll filed another lawsuit and whether the cases could be on the same 28 track. I explained that by filing an action in California, Alphaville made it procedurally difficult for -2DECL OF KHACHATOURIAN ISO MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQ. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO.: 08-CV-0778-MHP

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 Knoll to name the Lees, Danrick, and Louie and advised that the clerk of the court would not issue a 2 summons for his clients without a separate action. It was my impression after the call that we had 3 agreed that the Danrick and Alphaville Actions should proceed as one case and sent him a 4 stipulation for his review and execution. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of 5 the email dated February 8, 2008 that I sent to Mr. Smith and the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 6 Joining Non-Party Counter-Defendants and for Issuance of Summons attachment. Despite every 7 attempt to resolve this matter informally, as of the filing of this motion, Mr. Smith has refused to 8 execute the stipulation or provide redline comments. 9 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation and Order

10 for Continuance of Case Management Conference which was filed January 7, 2008. 11 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Order Setting Initial

12 Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines in the Danrick Action which was filed February 13 1, 2008. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

15 is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Redwood Shores, California. 16 Dated: February 22, 2008 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
#1036072-v1

/s/ Karineh Khachatourian Karineh Khachatourian

-3DECL OF KHACHATOURIAN ISO MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQ. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO.: 08-CV-0778-MHP

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 1 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 2 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 3 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 4 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 5 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 6 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 7 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 8 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 9 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 10 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 11 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 12 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 13 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 14 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 15 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 16 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 17 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 18 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 19 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 20 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 21 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 22 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 23 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 24 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 25 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 26 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 27 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 28 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 29 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 30 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 31 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 32 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 33 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 34 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 35 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 36 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 37 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 38 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 39 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 40 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 41 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 42 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 43 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 44 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 45 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 46 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 47 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 48 of 49

Case 3:08-cv-00778-MHP

Document 8-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 49 of 49