Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-07429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Zioness Movement v. The Lawfare Project: Judge Hellerstein set dates and ordered briefing on jury-trial and damages issues.
Zioness Movement, Inc., The Lawfare Project, Inc., and third-party defendant Amanda Berman; the order also directed counsel for both parties to file briefing.
What happened
In Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc., the court addressed how the case would proceed toward trial. The case also includes third-party claims against Zioness Movement and Amanda Berman.
The court reminded the parties that the final pretrial conference was scheduled for September 11, 2023, and trial was scheduled to begin on September 18, 2023. It postponed an August 10 status conference to August 24. The court also stated that the third-party claims would be tried later because they involve issues different from those in the complaint.
Judge Hellerstein ordered the parties to brief whether the upcoming trial should be before a jury or the court. He also requested briefing about the showing needed for a jury trial when actual damages are alleged, whether the parties must choose between actual and statutory damages by the final pretrial conference, and whether expenses from trademark cancellation proceedings are sanctions or damages.
The detailed version
- Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07429
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 10, 2023
Nature of the Order
This order regulated the proceedings; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or determine whether trial would be before a jury or the court.
Scheduling
The court reminded counsel that the final pretrial conference was set for September 11, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., and that trial was scheduled to begin on September 18, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The status conference scheduled for August 10, 2023, was adjourned to August 24, 2023, at 10:30 a.m.
The court stated that, because of essential differences between the issues alleged in the complaint and those alleged in the third-party complaint, and in the court’s discretion, the third-party claims would be tried at a later date.
Requested Briefing
The court directed both parties to file briefs by August 22, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., addressing whether the upcoming trial should proceed before a jury, as requested, or before the court. The court identified three questions:
- Whether merely alleging actual damages is enough to support a jury trial when the Lanham Act’s statutory damages provisions are rooted in equity and claims for equitable relief or unjust enrichment generally do not require a jury, and, if not, what showing is required.
- Whether the court may require the plaintiff and defendant to decide by the final pretrial conference whether they seek actual or statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).
- Whether expenses incurred in cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are recoverable as sanctions, which would be decided by the court, or as damages, which would be tried to a jury.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.