Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 18 C 2188, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 4, 2019) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Luxottica’s motion for reconsideration that defendants were not properly served as to all but one defendant in this counterfeiting case involving Oakley sunglasses.
Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- Luxottica’s raised three factual issues: 1) that Alibaba, who hosted defendants stores, would not likely have given defendants’ addresses, 2) Luxottica received defendants’ addresses after filing the complaint, and 3) the names on the return addresses did not match the names of the defendants.
- Each of Luxottica’s factual arguments could have been raised in its sur-reply and, therefore, were not appropriate for reconsideration.
- Luxottica’s receipt of defendants’ packages was after the complaint was filed, but before the ninety day deadline for service. So, Luxottica could have waited for the packages to attempt service. And Luxottica did not show why its default damages were unable to make it whole.
- Luxottica offered no authority for being unable to use the return addresses because the name on the address was not identical to defendants’ names.
- Luxottica also overstated its costs in investigating the address. While there were 906 defendants, only six challenged service. So, it only had to investigate six. While $1,500 in costs for each of 906 defendants may be probative, $1,500 for the four addresses of the six entities that challenged service would only be $6,000.
- Luxottica’s legal theories were each new and had not been raised in briefing the underlying motion. So, those arguments were improper as well.
- The Court had not relied upon Supreme Court dicta, as Luxottica alleged. Instead, the Court looked at analogous Supreme Court precedent to determine how best to rule.
- The Court noted that while Luxottica’s notice of supplemental authority was improper because Luxottica did not seek leave to file it – and it therefore could have been disregarded – but the Court considered the cases despite that.