From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Revise Clothing, Inc. v. Joe's Jeans Subsidiary, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 13, 2010
09 Civ. 3961 (BSJ) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding no prejudice where Defendant was permitted to file a sur-reply and present evidence at the evidentiary hearing

Summary of this case from JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman
See 7 Summaries

Opinion

09 Civ. 3961 (BSJ) (JCF).

January 13, 2010

ORDER

JAMES FRANCIS IV, Magistrate Judge

Today I issued a decision on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the law firm representing the defendants. I filed that decision under seal because of the possibility that it contains information confidential to the parties. By January 20, 2010, the parties shall submit papers identifying what, if any, information they request to be redacted from the version of the decision that will be publicly filed, providing a detailed basis for any such request. These submissions may themselves be filed under seal.

SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Revise Clothing, Inc. v. Joe's Jeans Subsidiary, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 13, 2010
09 Civ. 3961 (BSJ) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010)

finding no prejudice where Defendant was permitted to file a sur-reply and present evidence at the evidentiary hearing

Summary of this case from JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman

finding defendant "suffered no prejudice," in part, "because it has submitted a surreply"

Summary of this case from Medina v. Buther

finding that, where the only allegation of similarity between two trademark cases is "the attorney's alleged insight into the former client's general litigation thinking, similarity is not established"

Summary of this case from Regalo Int'l, LLC v. Munchkin, Inc.

denying a motion to strike when the moving party suffered no prejudice even though it was "plainly improper to submit on reply evidentiary information that was available to the moving party at the time that it filed its motion and that is necessary in order for that party to meet its burden"

Summary of this case from Brown Publ'g Co. Liquidating Tr. v. Brown

In Revise Clothing, Inc., the court rejected the notion that a narrowly drawn retainer for a specific, one-time arrangement obliged the firm to handle all future litigation for the client.

Summary of this case from Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co. v. Hop Wo Int'l Trading

explaining that "if the facts giving rise to an issue which is material in both the former and the present litigations are as a practical matter the same, then there is a `substantial relationship' between the representations"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc.

explaining that, "[o]nce it is established that a substantial relationship exists between [a lawyer's] prior and current matters, it is presumed that counsel who participated in both had access during the first litigation to confidential information that would be relevant in the second"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc.
Case details for

Revise Clothing, Inc. v. Joe's Jeans Subsidiary, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:REVISE CLOTHING, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOE'S JEANS SUBSIDIARY, INC., JOE'S…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jan 13, 2010

Citations

09 Civ. 3961 (BSJ) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc.

See Pressman-Gutman Motion to Disqualify at 10; see also id. at 6 (emphasizing that GDLSK "received…

Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co. v. Hop Wo Int'l Trading

Hop Wo's individual payments of $800 per lease review are consistent with the Tung Firm's standard fee for a…

63 Citing Cases