Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2023

Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-11227
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Atallah Group v. GMA Accessories, Judge Schofield consolidated two cases and declared the abandonment counterclaim trial ready.

Who this affects

Atallah Group US Inc., New Six Limited, and GMA Accessories Inc.; the order also affects the related case involving GMA Accessories, Inc. and New Six Limited and others.

What happened

In Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories Inc., the court combined that case with GMA Accessories’ case against New Six Limited and others because they shared a legal or factual question. The combined cases will proceed under the lower docket number, 21 Civ. 11227.

The court said the abandonment counterclaim was the only surviving claim after summary judgment; the other counterclaims were dismissed because the parties agreed. After consolidation, Atallah Group US Inc. and New Six Limited will pursue that counterclaim as an affirmative claim against GMA Accessories Inc., with no further discovery or motion practice because it is ready for trial.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield also set deadlines for Atallah and New Six to seek attorney’s fees under the statute governing exceptional trademark cases, and for the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan. The court directed the Clerk to consolidate the cases and amend the caption.

The detailed version

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

Case
Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-11227
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 16, 2023

Background

The court had before it two related cases: Case No. 21 Civ. 11227, brought by GMA Accessories, Inc. against New Six Limited and others, and Case No. 22 Civ. 7438, brought by Atallah Group US Inc. against GMA Accessories Inc. After a telephonic conference on October 13, 2023, the court addressed how the cases should proceed together.

Consolidation

The court ordered consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which permits related actions to be combined when they involve a common question of law or fact. All further filings must be made under the lower docket number, 21 Civ. 11227. The consolidated case is to be captioned ATALLAH GROUP US INC., et al. v. GMA ACCESSORIES INC.

Surviving claim and case status

The court stated that the abandonment counterclaim is the sole surviving claim in Case No. 21 Civ. 11227. It explained that the only claims remaining after summary judgment were counterclaims and that the other counterclaims were dismissed on the parties’ consent. After consolidation, the abandonment counterclaim will be treated as an affirmative claim by Atallah Group US Inc. and New Six Limited against GMA Accessories Inc.

The court ordered that no further discovery or motion practice take place concerning that claim because it had been fully litigated and was ready for trial.

Attorney’s-fee motion

The court ordered Atallah and New Six to file, by November 10, 2023, a motion for attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), based on an "exceptional case" theory and their status as the prevailing party at summary judgment in Case No. 21 Civ. 11227 before consolidation. Their memorandum could not exceed 25 pages. GMA Accessories could file an opposition of no more than 25 pages by November 30, 2023, and Atallah and New Six could file a reply of no more than 10 pages by December 11, 2023. At that stage, the court said counsel did not need to attach timesheets or other documents supporting the work performed and time spent. The fee motion was within the purview of Judge Cott under a September 9, 2022 referral order.

Case management

The parties were ordered to submit a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order by October 20, 2023. The court stated that scheduling any Rule 16(a) conference was within the purview of Judge Cott under the same referral order. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk to consolidate the two cases under Case No. 21 Civ. 11227 and amend the caption accordingly.

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.