| Viahart Said
Its Brain Flakes Are As Famous As Nike Per
Amazon Now SJ Opposition by Oct 28
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 22 – Viahart based in
Wills Point, Texas believes
that its "Brain Flakes" brand
is as well known as Coca-Cola
and Nike. So it is
suing.
On
February 22 U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Gregory H. Woods held a
proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.
Judge Woods asked Viahart's
lawyer for the basis of
claiming this fame of Brain
Flakes.
The response
cited Amazon reviews, even
Pinterest posts.
Update of
February 24: to enlarge the
record, and to be responsive
as so many aren't, we noted
also "Brain Flakes' articles
in the Wall Street Journal and
New York Times."
Judge Woods
advised addressing it in
upcoming briefs. He declined
to stay discovery.
On December 2,
Judge Woods held another
proceeding in the case and
Inner City Press again covered
it. Now the talk was of an
amended complaint.
On March 17,
2022, this: "STIPULATION OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is
hereby stipulated and agreed
by and between the parties
and/or their respective
counsel(s) that the
above-captioned action is
voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice against the
defendant(s) Playlearn USA,
Inc. and without costs
pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Document filed by Viahart,
LLC. Proposed document to be
reviewed and processed by
Clerk's Office staff (No
action required by
chambers)...(Susser, Steven)."
But on June 14,
Judge Woods held another
conference, and Inner City
Press again covered it. There
was talk of a second amended
complaint.
On July 18, Judge
Woods held another conference,
and Inner City Press again
covered it. Afterward Judge
Woods ordered that "the CK
Defendants' objections to
Document Request Nos. 1 and 11
are sustained and the CK
Defendants' objections to
Document Request Nos. 6, 7, 8,
9, 16, and 21 are overruled.
The parties are directed to
promptly meet and confer with
respect to the deadline for
the CK Defendants to produce
the documents that are
responsive to the
above-mentioned document
requests. The Court accepts
the CK Defendants' oral
commitment during the July 18,
2022 conference that the CK
Defendants will respond to
Interrogatory No. 4 no later
than July 25, 2022. (Signed by
Judge Gregory H. Woods on
7/18/2022)."
On July 22, Judge
Woods allowed plaintiff's
counsel to withdraw and raised
the specter of dismissing the
case if a new lawyer isn't
found: "ORDER granting [118]
Motion to Withdraw as
Attorney. On July 22, 2022,
the Court held a
teleconference to discuss
Carlson, Gaskey & Olds,
P.C.'s motion to withdraw as
counsel of record for
Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 118.
For the reasons stated on the
record during that conference,
Carlson, Gaskey & Olds,
P.C.'s motion is granted. As
stated on the record during
the July 22, 2022 conference,
this case is stayed until
August 12, 2022 to allow
Plaintiff to search for and
retain replacement counsel. In
the event that Plaintiff
retains new counsel prior to
August 12, 2022, the stay will
be lifted upon the filing of a
notice of appearance by that
counsel. If counsel for
Plaintiff has not entered a
notice of appearance by August
12, 2022, the Court will
understand that Plaintiff has
chosen to discontinue this
litigation, and expects to
dismiss the case for failure
to prosecute. The Clerk of
Court is directed to:
Terminate the motion pending
at Dkt. No. 118. Remove
attorneys Steven Craig Susser
and Brian Tobin from the list
of active counsel in this
case; Stay this case until
August 12, 2022; and Update
Plaintiff's address on the
docket and mail a copy of this
order to Plaintiff at:
Viahart, LLC, 1321 Upland Dr.,
No. 6481, Houston, TX 77043.
Attorney Steven Craig Susser
and Brian Tobin terminated.
(Signed by Judge Gregory H.
Woods on 7/22/2022)."
On August 15,
noting that the stay was
lifted, Judge Woods set a
schedule: "ORDER. The stay in
this case was lifted on August
12, 2022. The deadline for
Defendants to file a motion
for summary judgment is
September 12, 2022.
Plaintiff's opposition is due
within four weeks following
the date of service of
Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Defendants' reply,
if any, is due within two
weeks following the date of
service of Plaintiff's
opposition. (HEREBY ORDERED by
Judge Gregory H. Woods)."
On October 20,
Judge Woods held another
conference and ruled that
plaintiff's opposition to
defendants' motion for summary
judgment is due by October 28,
with a reply if any within two
weeks of service.
The case is
Viahart, LLC v. Creative Kids
Online, LLC et al., 20-cv-9943
(Woods)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
