A magistrate judge recommended that a trademark holder’s motion for default judgment be granted where the bankruptcy stay did not protect defendant’s commission of trademark and service mark infringement, the possibility of prejudice to the holder in the absence of a default judgment would have been significant, and trademark infringement was established. Parties’ litigation attorneys Los Angeles appeal.
Recommended that motion be granted.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted because plaintiff’s second amended complaint made no specific mention of defendant in connection with any claim for relief except the claim for a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq., but that claim had been dismissed without leave to amend in connection with the first motion to dismiss because a loan servicer was not a debt collector regulated by the Act and because foreclosure on a residential mortgage was not debt collection under the Act, and the same reasoning applied to defendant.
Motion to dismiss granted. Case dismissed.