FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Sheila Del Fuego, Pro Se
(310) 944-20555
Defendant, Pro Se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
| Bleekers Outdoor Corporation
Plaintiff, vs. Shane McGowan, an individual and d/b/a/ Twincities.com; Kathleen Beck, an individual and d/b/a www.suchfine.com; Sheila Del Fuego, an individual and d/b/a Online Sales; Joe Jeff, an individual and d/b/a Jeff’s Stores Online Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Civil Action No.
CVO9 – 00000 CBM (FMOx) Action Filed: September 21, 2009 DEFENDANT SHEILA DEL FUEGO’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT |
| ) |
Defendant Sheila Del Fuego permitted her son Ronny Waters to use her credit cards and her good name on business licenses and other registrations in this unfortunate matter and therefore defendant Sheila Del Fuego is not directly responsibility for any liability that may or may not have been incurred by her son Ronny Waters. For purposes of this answer Sheila Del Fuego answers by admitting limited imputed liability and requests that her son Ronny Waters is the real party in interest subject to all of plaintiffs allegations in this lawsuit. Doe defendant Ronny Waters will stipulate to being Doe amended in to this complaint if Sheila Del Fuego is dismissed with predudice.
However for the purposes of filing the Del Fuego’s answer to the complaint on the last statutory day, Defendant Sheila Del Fuego, for herself and also for her yet to be named Doe defendant son Ronny Waters hereby answers Bleekers Outdoor Corporation’s complaint paragraph by paragraph as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- Defendants admit jurisdiction.
- 2. Defendants admit venue.
INTRODUCTION
- Deny all allegations as to mistakenly named defendant Sheila Del Fuego. Admit only that as yet unnamed defendant Doe Ronny Waters, www.badmode.com and www.vipaccessories.net unknowingly and with innocent intent purchased plaintiffs products online from China. Deny all allegations of manufacturing as products were manufactured by unknown and unnamed parties in China. Defendants further admit that the Complaint filed by Bleeker alleges separate and unrelated causes of action against other Defendants including Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution and Unfair Competition. The Del Fuego defendants have no information and belief as to other defendants and therefore deny all allegations unrelated to the Del Fuego defendants. Furthermore, the Del Fuego defendants state that this Complaint improperly contains separate unrelated alleged causes of actions against the remaining defendants, which should be severed from any action against the Del Fuego defendants.
- 4. For the purposes of this answer defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies each and every allegation in this complaint against her for wrong doing. Doe defendant Ronny Waters admits that Bleekers seeks relief and denies that real party in interest Ronny Waters has sold any products since December 15, 2008 in answer to all allegations against him in this Complaint.
THE PARTIES
- Defendants admit based upon information and belief.
- This paragraph is unrelated to the Del Fuego Defendants and does not require a response. To the extent that this paragraph requires a response, the Del Fuego Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny each and every allegation in this paragraph.
- This paragraph is unrelated to the Del Fuego Defendants and does not require a response. To the extent that this paragraph requires a response, the Del Fuego Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny each and every allegation in this paragraph.
- Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies that she does business as Online Sales and admits that her son Ronny Waters does business as Online sales. Defendant admits that Sheila Del Fuego and Ronny Waters are residents of Orange in the State of California. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies that she transacts business as www.ruedemode.com and www.vipaccessories.net and admits that her son Ronny Waters transacts business as www.ruedemode.com and www.vipaccessories.net in this judicial district.
- This paragraph is unrelated to the Del Fuego Defendants and does not require a response. To the extent that this paragraph requires a response, the Del Fuego Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny each and every allegation in this paragraph.
- 10. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego admits that Ronny Waters is a John Doe defendant pursuant to line one of this paragraph. Del Fuego Defendants deny all allegations of manufacturing and admit that John Doe defendant Ronny Waters may have mistakenly purchased products online from China and may have mistakenly sold them online with innocent intent.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. Defendants admit.
12. Defendants admit.
13. Defendants admit.
14. Defendants admit.
15. Defendants admit.
16. Defendants admit.
DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
17. Defendants deny that they have anything to do with manufacturing. Defendants admit in part that defendant Ronny Waters only may have mistakenly and unknowingly sold products online prior to December of 2008 only, with innocent intent.
18. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies that she processes purchases as she doesn’t even know how to turn on a computer, and admits that defendant Ronny Waters unknowingly and unintentionally processed purchases prior to December of 2008 only, with innocent intent.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trademark Infringement)
19. Del Fuego Defendants incorporate their answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth fully herein.
20. Del Fuego Defendants admit.
21. Del Fuego Defendants admit.
22. Del Fuego Defendants admit.
23. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all further allegations in the First Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies as to all allegations of manufacturing, admits that Doe defendant Ronny Waters only, unintentionally purchased products online from China and resold products online with innocent intent.
24. Del Fuego Defendants deny as to all allegations of manufacturing, admit that Doe defendant Ronny Waters may have unintentionally purchased products online from China and resold products online with innocent intent.
25. Del Fuego Defendants admit that Doe defendant Ronny Waters only may have unintentionally purchased products online from China and resold products online, with innocent intent.
26. Deny as to defendant Sheila Del Fuego and admit as to Doe defendant Ronny Waters.
27. Defendants deny on the grounds that Doe defendant Ronny Waters ceased all alleged involvement in December of 2008.
28. Defendants deny on the grounds that Doe defendant Ronny Waters cease all alleged involvement in December of 2008.
29. Del Fuego Defendants admit that Doe defendant Ronny Waters only may have unintentionally purchased products online from China and resold products online, with innocent intent.
30. Defendants deny all allegations of malicious and fraudulent intent and admit that Doe defendant Ronny Waters exercised innocent intent.
31. Defendants deny all allegations of manufacturing and infringing and will be unable to provide an accounting at this time.
32. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations and Doe defendant Jaime Abuerto, based upon information and belief is unable to admit or deny at this time.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Lanham Act – Unfair Competition)
33. Del Fuego Defendants incorporate their answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as if set forth fully herein.
34. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Second Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters admits based upon information and belief.
35. Defendant Ronny Waters admits based upon information and belief.
36. Defendants deny.
37. Defendant Ronny Waters denies that he will continue to sell products and answers that he ceased selling all footwear products in December of 2008.
- 38. Defendants deny.
- 39. Defendants deny and plead innocent intent.
- 40. Defendants deny that they continue to sell the product or will continue to sell the product.
- 41. Defendants deny all allegations of manufacturing and will be unable to provide an accounting at this time.
42. Defendants deny.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Lanham Act – Dilution of Famous Mark)
43. Del Fuego Defendants incorporate their answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 above, as if set forth fully herein.
44. Defendants admit.
45. Defendants admit.
46. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Third Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies that he caused plaintiffs injury. Del Fuego defendants are unable to admit or deny as to other defendants and therefore deny.
47. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations. Doe defendant Ronny Waters conditionally admits unintentional display, advertising and promotion online only.
48. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies willful nature of the allegation and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
49. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies any wrongdoing. Defendant Ronny Waters has not sold any footwear since December 2008.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Unfair Competition – California Law)
50. Del Fuego Defendants incorporate their answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 above, as if set forth fully herein.
51. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
52. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
53. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
54. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
55. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
56. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and has not sold any footwear since December 2008.
57. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and has not sold any footwear since December 2008.
58. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies all allegations.
59. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and will be unable to provide an accounting.
60. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fourth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Dilution Under California Law)
61. Del Fuego Defendants incorporate their answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 60 above, as if set forth fully herein.
62. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fifth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters has no information and belief as to other defendants and therefore denies and pleads innocent intent as an affirmative defense.
63. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fifth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters has no information and belief as to other defendants and therefore denies.
64. Defendant Sheila Del Fuego denies all allegations in this Fifth Claim for Relief. Doe defendant Ronny Waters has no information and belief as to other defendants and therefore denies based upon the grounds that he has not sold any footwear since December 2008.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST DEFENSE (FAILURE TO MITIGATE)
- 65. Plaintiffs’ claims and Complaint are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their claim through arbitration, good faith and fair dealing, honest business practices, clear and reasonable communication and other means.
SECOND DEFENSE (FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
- 66. Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim or cause including but not limited to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 and/or any other valid claim, code, cause of action, statute or act.
THIRD DEFENSE (INNOCENT INTENT)
- 67. Plaintiffs’ claims or damages, if any, are limited by Defendants’ innocent intent.
FOURTH DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL)
- 68. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.
FIFTH DEFENSE (WAIVER)
- 69. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver.
SIXTH DEFENSE (UNCLEAN HANDS)
70. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands.
SEVENTH DEFENSE (LACHES)
71. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO JOIN INDESPENSIBLE PARTIES
- 72. Plaintiffs have failed to name Doe defendant Ronny Waters and mistakenly named his mother, Sheila Del Fuego, who has committed no wrongdoing and instead has unknowingly allowed her son Ronny Waters to use her credit cards and good name on business licenses and other registrations. Plaintiff has failed to join indispensable parties in China who manufactured the products. Plaintiff manufactures their own products in China and should have information and belief as to what other parties manufactured products and should be named as defendants.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that plaintiffs’ take nothing by their complaint, that the Court find judgment in favor of Defendant, and each side to bear their own legal costs and fees.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: October 27, 2009 __________________________________
Sheila Del Fuego, Defendant Pro Se
Date: October 27, 2009 Ronny Waters, Doe Defendant Pro Se
Tagged with