539 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2008), 07-15310, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. KXD Technology, Inc.
|Citation:||539 F.3d 1039, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1683|
|Party Name:||KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., a Netherlands corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KXD TECHNOLOGY, INC.; Astar Electronics, Inc.; Shenzhen KXD Multimedia Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Kaixinda Electronics Co. Ltd.; KXD Digital Entertainment, Ltd.; and Jingyi Luo, a/k/a James Luo, Defendants-Appellants, and Sungale Group, Inc.; Sungale Electronics (Shen|
|Case Date:||August 20, 2008|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2008.
Anton N. Handal, at argument, and Pamela C. Chalk and Gabriel G. Hedrick, on the briefs, Handal & Associates, San Diego, CA, for the defendants-appellants.
Jeffrey K. Joyner, at argument, and David C. Caplan and Jan Jensen, on the briefs, Keats McFarland & Wilson LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01532-RLH.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,[*] and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
WALKER, Circuit Judge:
Defendants-Appellants KXD Technology, Inc., Astar Electronics, Inc., Shenzen KXD Multimedia, Inc., Shenzhen Kaixinda Electronics Co., Ltd., KXD Digital Entertainment, Ltd., and Jingyi Luo, a/k/a James Luo, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Hunt, J ) imposing monetary sanctions for civil contempt. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips" ) sued the above-named defendants, alleging that they had infringed Philips's registered trademark and had knowingly offered counterfeited Philips goods for sale in the United States. On January 5, 2006, the district court issued an amended temporary restraining and seizure order that was immediately served on the defendants at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada. The following day, because defendants' principal place of business and warehouse was in California, Philips sought and was granted a temporary restraining and seizure order by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. That order was served at defendants' California warehouse, where the Marshals Service found and confiscated counterfeit products bearing the Philips trademark.
On March 14, 2006, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that principally enjoined defendants from dealing in any product that infringed Philips's trademarks. The district court also ordered defendants to file a report setting forth their inventory of counterfeit Philips products by April 13, 2006 and a report describing in detail their compliance with the preliminary injunction by May 15, 2006. Before these reports were due, on April 10, 2006, the district court issued another seizure order, which resulted in the confiscation of additional counterfeit Philips products at locations controlled by the defendants.
By February of 2007, it became clear to the district court that the defendants had no intention of complying with its orders. The district court noted that there was “abundant evidence of the Defendants' non-compliance and active violations of both the TRO and preliminary injunction." In fact, the defendants had failed to file any reports, required or otherwise, showing that they had complied in any way with the district court's orders. This failure continued even after the plaintiff moved for sanctions on October 11, 2006. At the sanctions hearing, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for civil contempt sanctions, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for: (1) $353,611.70 in attorney's fees; (2) $37,098.14 in seizure and storage costs; (3) $1,284,090.00 in lost royalties; and (4) $10,000.00 per day until the reports were filed. In addition, the court ordered defendants to post a $2 million bond.
The defendants now appeal the district court's imposition of sanctions. The plaintiff contends that such an interlocutory appeal is impermissible and that we lack jurisdiction to hear it.
A. Standard of Review
We review questions of our own jurisdiction de novo. Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir.1998).
B. Civil vs. Criminal Contempt Orders
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP