Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vinci Brands v. Coach, Judge Schofield ordered responses to a request to combine related lawsuits but did not decide consolidation.
KSNY and Case-Mate were ordered to respond by January 29, 2024. The requested consolidation could affect the parties in the two related lawsuits, including Vinci Brands LLC, ACS Group Acquisitions LLC, Kate Spade, LLC and its affiliates, Coach Services, Inc., Tapestry, Inc., and Case-Mate, Inc., but the text does not decide whether consolidation will occur.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., lawyers for Vinci Brands LLC and ACS Group Acquisitions LLC described two related lawsuits involving a terminated trademark license, manufactured goods, and competing claims involving Kate Spade and Case-Mate. They said the lawsuits shared parties, facts, discovery, and legal issues.
The lawyers asked the court for permission to seek consolidation of the lawsuits and requested a conference about that request. They argued that combining the cases would reduce duplicated discovery, costs, and the risk of inconsistent results. They also asked, alternatively, that the cases be combined for discovery while postponing a decision about combining them for trial.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered KSNY and Case-Mate to file responses of no more than three pages by January 29, 2024. The text does not show a decision on whether to consolidate the lawsuits.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 25, 2024
Nature of the document
The text is a January 22, 2024 letter from lawyers representing ACS Group Acquisitions LLC and Vinci Brands LLC, together with Judge Schofield's January 25, 2024 order directing responses. It is not a ruling on the underlying contract, trademark, or inventory disputes.
Background
The letter describes two related federal cases: the Vinci Action, brought by Vinci against Kate Spade, LLC, two affiliates, and Case-Mate, Inc.; and the KSNY Action, brought by Kate Spade, LLC and one affiliate against Vinci. The letter also states that ACS, described as Vinci's secured lender, sued Kate Spade in New York state court and was later added to the federal case by an amended complaint.
According to the letter, Kate Spade had licensed Vinci to use Kate Spade trademarks in manufacturing and selling mobile products beginning in 2014. The letter states that Kate Spade purported to terminate that license on June 14, 2023, and entered a license with Case-Mate the same day. The letter characterizes the parties' resulting disputes as involving breach of contract, trademark infringement, and rights to inventory and collateral after termination of the license. These descriptions are the requesting parties' account in the letter, not findings by the court in this text.
Request for consolidation
The lawyers asked for leave to move to consolidate the two federal actions and requested a pre-motion conference. They argued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) that the cases should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law or fact. They said consolidation would promote efficient use of court resources, avoid duplicative discovery and trials, reduce costs, and lessen the risk of inconsistent results.
The request sought consolidation for the entire litigation. Alternatively, if consolidation for trial was premature, the lawyers asked the court to consolidate the cases for discovery and defer the trial-consolidation decision until after discovery and summary-judgment motions. The letter states that Kate Spade and Case-Mate opposed consolidation or had not consented to it, citing concerns about ACS's access to confidential documents. Those positions and the arguments about confidentiality are described by the requesting lawyers.
Court's action
Judge Schofield ordered KSNY and Case-Mate to file responses, each response not exceeding three pages, by January 29, 2024. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the request for leave to move, held the requested conference, or consolidated either case. It also does not decide any party's contract, trademark, or other underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.