Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2025

Just Goods, Inc. v. Just, Inc.

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:18-cv-02198
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2

Counsel13 of record
COUNTER DEFENDANT
Jill Maria Pietrini Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Bridget Jean Russell Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
Paul A. Bost Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
DEFENDANT
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLPLLP3 attorneys
Olivia A. Harris, Brittany Taylor Knutson, Charles H. Hooker , III
Putterman Yu Wang LLPLLP2 attorneys
Constance Jiun-Yee Yu, Traci Michelle Keith
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLPLLP2 attorneys
Trevor Charles Maxim, Dennis LeRoy Wilson
Putterman | Yu LLPLLP
Philip J. Wang
Verso Law Group LLPLLP
Sophy Tabandeh Manes

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.

Civil ProcedureIntellectual PropertyFee Petition
In one sentence

In Just Goods v. Just, Judge Orrick continued sanctions for noncompliance, ordering $82,500 and $40,182 in attorney fees.

Who this affects

The defendants were required to pay $82,500 in sanctions and reimburse Just Goods, Inc. $40,182 in attorney fees, and the parties were required to provide further compliance updates.

What happened

In Just Goods, Inc. v. Just, Inc., the parties disagreed about whether the defendants were complying with their agreement, called the Term Sheet. The court found that the defendants remained in violation, although progress had been made.

The court continued monthly sanctions, reduced the amount to $15,000 per month for January through June 2025, and set the total at $82,500. It also ordered the defendants to reimburse Just Goods, Inc. $40,182 for outstanding attorney fees within 30 days.

Judge William H. Orrick also ordered the parties to file additional compliance updates and said he did not expect to issue a fourth sanctions order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Just Goods, Inc. v. Just, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-02198
Judge
William Orrick
Date
July 18, 2025

Background

The parties had agreed to a Term Sheet nearly six years earlier. In response to the court’s prior order, both sides submitted statements about the defendants’ current compliance. The defendants argued that they had done everything within their control to comply and asked the court to order non-party Walmart.com to change a product listing. Just Goods, Inc. argued that infringing activity remained, that the defendants should have resolved it without blaming third parties, and that new violations had occurred since the prior order.

Sanctions

The court found that progress had generally been made but that the defendants remained in violation of the Term Sheet. It continued per diem sanctions, meaning recurring sanctions assessed over time, but reduced the amount to $15,000 per month. The sanctions covered January 15, 2025, through June 2025, for a total of $82,500. The defendants must pay that amount in three equal installments, due October 1, 2025; January 1, 2026; and April 1, 2026.

Attorney Fees

The court determined that Just Goods, Inc. continued to incur attorney fees while pursuing the defendants’ compliance. It excluded fees already accounted for in the February 25, 2025 order and ordered the defendants to reimburse the remaining $40,182. The payment was due within 30 days of the order.

Further Proceedings and Disposition

The defendants must file another compliance update by October 15, 2025, including information about the new violations raised in Just Goods, Inc.’s June 26, 2025 statement. Just Goods, Inc. may respond by November 8, 2025. This was the third order imposing sanctions to obtain compliance, and Judge William H. Orrick stated that he did not expect there to be a fourth.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.