Labbaik Ltd v. Jadoo TV, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-05878
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Labbaik v. Jadoo TV, Magistrate Judge Westmore lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the corporate plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
The order directly affects Labbaik Ltd. and BOL Enterprise Ltd., which must explain why the case should not be dismissed and must respond by September 6, 2024.
What happened
Labbaik (Pvt) Ltd v. Jadoo TV, Inc. involves copyright and trademark claims by Labbaik Ltd. and BOL Enterprise Ltd. against Jadoo TV, Inc. and Sajid Sohail.
The court had paused the case after Jadoo TV, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. After learning that the bankruptcy case closed in February 2023, the court lifted the pause. It also questioned whether the case was properly filed because the corporate plaintiffs did not appear to have lawyers.
Magistrate Judge Westmore ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of a lawyer and for failure to prosecute. They had to respond by September 6, 2024. The order states that failure to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge and a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Labbaik Ltd v. Jadoo TV, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-05878
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Labbaik Ltd. and BOL Enterprise Ltd. filed claims against Jadoo TV, Inc. and Sajid Sohail for copyright and trademark infringement. Jadoo TV, Inc. later filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition, and the court stayed, or paused, this case because of the bankruptcy proceedings.
When it imposed the stay, the court noted that the case might not have been properly filed because both plaintiffs were companies and neither appeared to be represented by licensed counsel. The court said it would require the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed after the stay ended.
Ruling
The court stated that the bankruptcy case had closed in February 2023. It therefore lifted the stay and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed because they were companies appearing without counsel.
The court also ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The bankruptcy case had closed more than a year and a half earlier, but the plaintiffs had not informed the court. The plaintiffs had to respond by September 6, 2024.
The order did not dismiss the case. It stated that if the plaintiffs failed to respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge and the court would recommend dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.