Ornua Foods North America, Inc. v. Abbey Specialty Foods, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-01212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ornua Foods v. Abbey Specialty Foods, Judge Oetken denied Abbey’s motion without prejudice and ordered limited discovery before renewed summary judgment proceedings.
The plaintiffs and Abbey Specialty Foods, LLC; the case proceeds to limited discovery, followed by a possible renewed summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Ornua Foods North America, Inc. and other plaintiffs sued Abbey Specialty Foods, LLC. The opinion provides no further facts about the claims or the parties’ arguments.
The court denied Abbey’s amended motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery. It limited discovery to materials relevant to the likelihood of confusion and set deadlines for documents, one deposition, and later summary-judgment briefing.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also directed the Clerk to close the motions listed at ECF Nos. 19 and 24. The order does not state the reasons discussed at the initial pretrial conference or decide the ultimate merits of the dispute.
The detailed version
- Ornua Foods North America, Inc. v. Abbey Specialty Foods, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01212
- James Oetken
- May 31, 2023
Background
The opinion is an order issued after an initial pretrial conference held on May 30, 2023. The text identifies Ornua Foods North America, Inc., and other plaintiffs, and Abbey Specialty Foods, LLC, as the defendant. It does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.
Motion
Abbey filed an amended motion seeking dismissal of the complaint and summary judgment. The court denied that motion without prejudice to renewal on a summary-judgment motion after discovery. The opinion does not provide the court’s substantive reasoning, stating only that the reasons were discussed during the initial pretrial conference.
Discovery and deadlines
The court limited discovery for this phase of the case to materials relevant to the likelihood of confusion, using the factors identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). Document discovery was due by August 31, 2023. The defendant was permitted one deposition of its witness designated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), to be completed by September 30, 2023.
The defendant’s renewed summary-judgment motion was due October 31, 2023. The plaintiffs’ opposition was due November 21, 2023, and the defendant’s reply was due November 28, 2023.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the amended motion to dismiss and for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 19 and 24. The order does not state whether any claim was dismissed or whether either side prevailed on the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.