Can a new Defendant be joined post-judgment/injunction?

[hate 2b pro se]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California, however the lawsuit is in Utah.

Can a Defendant be added (joined) post-judgment injunction? If so, can that Defendant be bound to that judgment/injunction if they have not had the opportunity to argue the case? What rights does a defendant have in this case?

As background, two partners in a business (not incorporated) were sued for patent infringement. They were not represented by an attorney because they could not afford one. They were only sued by their persoanl names and not DBA their business name and the business itself was not sued by name. They asked for an attorney to be appointed but were denied.

The case was granted to the Plaintiff in summary judgment and a permanent injunction was issued, all basically by default, not on the merits, due to the inability of the defendants to present their own case in pro se. As this case drug on, post-judgment, the partnership was disolved and the company split. One of the Defendants retained the name. This Defendant then sold the name and the inventory to another individual. The Plaintiff has now motioned the court to join the new owner of the business post-judgment. The new owner is prepared to fight the infringment allegations and wants to know his rights. Is he bound by the injunction against the previous owner? How can he fight the Motion to Join? Is there case law on this?

Thanks and take care,
Lisa

 

[latigo]

Obviously you have chosen to paint this picture just as you desire others to see it. And I find particular fault in your grossly erroneous and bias conclusion that the permanent injunction “WAS ISSUED BY DEFAULT AND NOT ON ITS MERITS"!

The trial court would not have issued the summary judgement had it not found that there were no substantial disputes as to the material factual issues indicating patent infringement. Hence the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In there lie the MERITS of the plaintiff’s complaint and the court’s ruling!

To contend that the defendants were denied due process of law by being prevented from resisting the motion, which would require nothing but a simple affidavit in rebuttal to the plaintiff’s assertions of wrongdoing is in my opinion nothing but a cop out in denial.

Is it possible that the objected to business practices in which they were engaged is the very reason the defendants avoided deny under oath the contents of the plaintiff’s motion and affidavit for summary judgement?

That is to say, that they were knowingly guilty of usurping registered proprietary rights and thus profiting by someone else’s work product.

It is interesting to note the absence in your post of any claim that these defendants were NOT guilty of engaging in unlawful patent infringement activities.

Moreover, if the person of interest to you has no intention of engaging in similar infringement practices, then what should he or she care one way or the other?

Since most people try to avoid buying a lawsuit, is there some logical explanation as to why someone would go out of their way to acquire a business carrying this baggage?

Have you actually read the order for summary judgment? Does it not enjoin the "defendants, their successors and assigns"?

 

[JETX]

Can a Defendant be added (joined) post-judgment injunction?

Can he be added?? Of course. All kinds of weird things CAN happen.
Should he?? No.

If so, can that Defendant be bound to that judgment/injunction if they have not had the opportunity to argue the case? What rights does a defendant have in this case?

Since the scenario should not arise, your questions are moot.

They were only sued by their persoanl names and not DBA their business name and the business itself was not sued by name.

Unless the business was a corporation, there is no requirement that the business be named.... as the d/b/a is just another name for the individuals.

They asked for an attorney to be appointed but were denied.

Attorneys are not provided for civil matters.

The case was granted to the Plaintiff in summary judgment and a permanent injunction was issued, all basically by default, not on the merits, due to the inability of the defendants to present their own case in pro se.

Not correct. Pro Se defendants have every opportunity to present their defense to the claims.

As this case drug on, post-judgment, the partnership was disolved and the company split. One of the Defendants retained the name. This Defendant then sold the name and the inventory to another individual. The Plaintiff has now motioned the court to join the new owner of the business post-judgment. The new owner is prepared to fight the infringment allegations and wants to know his rights. Is he bound by the injunction against the previous owner?

Depends on EXACTLY what was purchased... and how the purchase agreement reads. The 'new owner' will have to have his attorney review ALL the documents and determine if the 'liability' (the injunction is a liability) would apply to him.
However, that is all kind of a non-issue, as the original plaintiff would (presumably) just file another lawsuit against the 'new' owner for his actions.

How can he fight the Motion to Join?

He can hire an attorney to defend against his being added to the existing ruling.

Is there case law on this?

Yes.

 

[HappyWanderer]

While latigo gives a fairly correct answer, the succinct, and real, answer to your question is:

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot include people who did not have a say in your lawsuit in your lawsuit.

 

[latigo]

HP, you have not read the order imposing the permanent injunction, neither has the OP nor I. And if you or any other layperson did read the order, it is questionable if it would be fully understood.

For you much needed enlightenment, these injunction orders - particularly when related to proven violations of patent and copyright laws - are broadly and inclusively written to apply NOT ONLY the named defending litigants but also their “officers, directors, agents, representative, assigns, successors, subsidiaries, divisions groups and affiliates.” *

Furthermore, is it unreasonable to assume that the successor to this Utah business is only opposing the motion knowing that if it is granted it will frustrate a pecuniary purpose in acquiring the business and inventory?

Is it reasonable for a person to object to being told that they cannot engage in an unlawful business activity? Does one have to be told?
_______________

One of the OP’s major arguments is that only the individual business partners were named in the lawsuit and not the business itself. Thus, by acquiring the business name and inventory the new owner should be immune from the mandates of the order.

Well, I wish him/her good luck in trying to sell that bit of meretricious logic to the court. It’s pure, unalloyed sophistry!


[*] See the stipulated permanent injunction order issued in the case of The Federal Trade Commission vs. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. United States District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-02179)

 

[hate 2b pro se]

The Defendants had an attorney at the beginning of proceedings, but ran out of money and the attorney withdrew leaving the Defendants pro se. The day after the attorney filed their withdrawal the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants asked for (and were granted) an extension of time, hoping to secure a new attorney, but were not able to afford one. Defendants having only a high school education and no experience at all in law were not able to draft a response, and had no idea what or how it should be done. So, the judgment and injunction were granted basically by default because the Defendants did not respond in the allotted time.

Defendants later (aprox a year and a half after judgment) found a sympathetic patent expert (not attorney) who ghost wrote a motion to have the judgment and injunction lifted and submitted prior art which the judge said had merit and if it had been submitted before would have changed the outcome, but he declined to lift the judgment and injunction saying the Defendants were given extra time and their new evidence was excellent but untimely.

The injunction reads as follows with regard to who is effected:

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, are permanently restrained from:....."

The Judgment reads as follows:

....the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of (Plaintiff corporation) and against (personal name of Defendant 1) and (personal name of Defendant 2). This case is now closed."

The new owner has registered a DBA in the same name and is in possession of the prior art which was admitted too late and feels if the Plaintiffs are forced to open a new cause of action against him, that he can submit the prior art and has an excellent chance of prevailing on invalidity of the asserted patents. While the Defendants and the new owner also feel that the products do not infringe, the prior art is so striking that it is the easiest point to argue.

The new owner also cannot afford an attorney and will be proceeding pro se.

Thank you in advance and take care.

 

[hate 2b pro se]

Also, the lawsuit is in Utah (the Plaintiff corporation's home state0 but the business, Defendants and new owner are in California.

Thanks and take care.