Judge Solis Reverses Course, Grants Motion to Withdraw as Counsel in Galaxy Powersports Case

Last July, we wrote about a motion to withdraw as counsel that Judge Solis denied in his Galaxy Powersports case. There, Judge Solis denied the motion to withdraw and directed defendant’s counsel to respond to the plaintiff’s anticipated summary judgment motion.

On September 27, 2012, Judge Solis issued an Order (available here), granting the defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Solis ordered the defendant to obtain substitute counsel by October 5, 2012, noting that a corporation cannot represent itself pro se in federal court.

Posted in Judge Solis (Ret.), Northern District Practice Tips | Comments Off on Judge Solis Reverses Course, Grants Motion to Withdraw as Counsel in Galaxy Powersports Case

Breaking News: Arlington Man Charged With Trying To Hire A Hit Man To Kill Judge McBryde

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that an Arlington man in federal custody has been charged with attempting to hire a hit man to kill Judge McBryde. The man had been scheduled to start trial on Monday for allegedly filing false tax returns, and believed that Judge McBryde was going to sentence him to 20 years in prison. The man had offered to pay another inmate $100,000 cash to kill Judge McBryde, and that inmate subsequently contacted federal authorities, who set up a sting operation that involved the man sending $5,000 to an FBI agent posing as a hitman.

Posted in Judge McBryde (Ret.), N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Breaking News: Arlington Man Charged With Trying To Hire A Hit Man To Kill Judge McBryde

Magistrate Judge Kaplan Assumes Position With JAMS

JAMS has announced (press release available here) that former Northern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan has joined its panel (after 18 years of federal judicial service). Judge Kaplan “will be based in the JAMS Dallas Resolution Center and is the 39th federal judge to join JAMS.” Judge Kaplan “will serve as an arbitrator, mediator and special master in a number of disputes including Appellate, Business/Commercial, Civil Rights, Class Action/Mass Torts, Employment, Insurance, Intellectual Property, Personal Injury/Torts and Professional Liability.”

We’ve litigated before Judge Kaplan (JAMS profile available here), and believe he’ll be a great arbitrator/mediator.

Best of luck to Judge Kaplan!

Posted in Magistrate Judge Kaplan (Ret.), N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Kaplan Assumes Position With JAMS

R&L Publishing Sues Success Resources For Trademark Infringement

On September 18, 2012, R&L Publishing hit Success Resources with a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas (complaint available here). R&L claims that it has “published a widely recognized magazine and conducted seminars in the fields of professional and financial achievement and entrepreneurial management throughout the United States. The magazine and the educational seminars are sold in association with one or more of the trademarks, ‘SUCCESS!®’, ‘SUCCESS FROM HOME®’, ‘SUCCESS®’, ‘SUCCESS FOR TEENS®’, ‘SUCCESS FOUNDATION®’, and ‘SUCCESS MEDIA®’ (collectively, the ‘SUCCESS® Marks’).” R&L asserts that Success Resources “is a competitor of R&L in conducting seminars and selling printed publications” and Success Resources has adopted and used the mark ‘SUCCESS 2012’ . . . in association with its seminars and printed publications[.]”

According, R&L asserts claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition against Success Resources.

R&L is represented by George Schultz and Nicole Marsh, both of Schultz & Associates.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on R&L Publishing Sues Success Resources For Trademark Infringement

Northern District of Texas Blog Turns 2

Yesterday was this site’s two-year anniversary. In two years, we’ve written nearly 300 posts, which we hope are helpful to Northern District of Texas practitioners. The site has had tens of thousands of visitors, from every state in the US, and nearly every country in the world. And hundreds of attorneys subscribe to the site, and follow us on Twitter (@ndtexblog).

To all our readers, we say thank you!

Here’s to two more years.

Posted in N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Northern District of Texas Blog Turns 2

Practice Tips: Typography In Briefs

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has put out “Suggestions for Typography in Briefs” (available here) that contains a number of suggestions for typography in briefs. Notable points include:

  • “Studies have shown that long passages of serif type are easier to read and comprehend than long passages of sans-serif type.” In other words, use fonts like Times New Roman and New Century Schoolbook, rather than fonts like Ariel, in your briefs. The vast majority of briefs use Times New Roman, so this piece of advice is already being followed.
  • Use proportionally spaced type, instead of monospaced type. Monospaced type is type with every character the same width, like Courier. Proportionally spaced type is type whose characters are not all the same width, like Times New Roman or Georgia. No book or magazine is set in monospaced type, so don’t use this in your briefs. Because most briefs are set in Times New Roman, this isn’t an issue.
  • “Use typefaces that were designed for books. Both the Supreme Court and the Solicitor General use Century. Professional typographers set books in New Baskerville, Book Antiqua, Calisto, Century, Century Schoolbook, Bookman Old Style and many other proportionally spaced serif faces. Any face with the word ‘book’ in its name is likely to be good for legal work.” Specifically, the Solicitor General uses Century Expanded (see here), and it is our favorite type, and the Supreme Court uses New Century Schoolbook (see here). (This post is written in Georgia, as WordPress doesn’t contain any other typeface options). Most briefs we see use Times New Roman, but:

Professional typographers avoid using Times New Roman for book-length (or brief-length) documents. This face was designed for newspapers, which are printed in narrow columns, and has a small x-height in order to squeeze extra characters into the narrow space. Type with a small x-height functions well in columns that contain just a few words, but not when columns are wide (as in briefs and other legal papers). In the days before Rule 32, when briefs had page limits rather than word limits, a typeface such as Times New Roman enabled lawyers to shoehorn more argument into a brief. Now that only words count, however, everyone gains from a more legible typeface, even if that means extra pages. Experiment with your own briefs to see the difference between Times and one of the other faces we have mentioned.

  • “Use italics, not underlining, for case names and emphasis. Case names are not underlined in the United States Reports, the Solicitor General’s briefs, or law reviews, for good reason. Underlining masks the descenders (the bottom parts of g, j, p, q, and y). This interferes with reading, because we recognize characters by shape. An underscore makes characters look more alike, which not only slows reading but also impairs comprehension.”
  • “Put only one space after punctuation. The typewriter convention of two spaces is for monospaced type only. When used with proportionally spaced type, extra spaces lead to what typographers call ‘rivers’—wide, meandering areas of white space up and down a page. Rivers interfere with the eyes’ movement from one word to the next.”
  • “Do not justify your text unless you hyphenate it too. If you fully justify unhyphenated text, rivers result as the word processing or page layout program adds white space between words so that the margins line up.” This piece of advice is widely not followed. Most briefs are fully justified, but not hyphenated.
  • “Indent the first line of each paragraph 1/4 inch or less. Big indents disrupt the flow of text. The half-inch indent comes from the tab key on a typewriter. It is never used in professionally set type, where the normal indent is one em (the width of the letter ‘m’).” This piece of advice is also widely ignored, as most briefs indent the first line of each paragraph ½ inch.
  • “Avoid bold type. It is hard to read and almost never necessary. Use italics instead. Bold italic type looks like you are screaming at the reader.”
Posted in Practice Tips | Comments Off on Practice Tips: Typography In Briefs

Celebrity Café Files Lawsuit Against Culinary Cooks

On September 14, 2012, Celebrity Café filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Culinary Cooks (and certain related individuals) (“defendants”) in the Northern District of Texas (complaint available here). Celebrity Café claims that, after it purchased Celebrity Café from defendants in 2006, they recently “opened and currently operate a restaurant under the ‘Silver Spoon Cafe & Bakery’ trade name. The ‘Silver Spoon Cafe & Bakery’ is a purposeful knock-off of the Celebrity Cafe & Bakery concept and trade dress.” Celebrity Café asserts trade dress infringement, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims against defendants.

Celebrity Café is represented by John Hendricks and Megan O’Laughlin, both of Hitchcock Everett LLP.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Celebrity Café Files Lawsuit Against Culinary Cooks

Allvoi Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in Northern District of Texas

On September 13, 2012, Allvoi hit Swift N Simple (“Swift”) with a trademark infringement lawsuit (complaint available here). Allvoi claims that Swift operates the website allvoi.net, which offers discount calls to India, whereas Allvoi operates the website allvoi.com and offers unlimited national and worldwide discounted long distance services. Swift, according to Allvoi, infringes Allvoi’s registered service mark ALLVOI.

Allvoi is represented by Brett Myers, of David, Goodman & Madole, P.C.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Allvoi Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in Northern District of Texas

OnAsset Intelligence Files Patent Case Against 7PSolutions

On September 12, 2012, OnAsset Intelligence hit 7PSolutions with a patent infringement lawsuit (available here) in the Northern District of Texas. OnAsset claims 7PSolutions infringes U.S. Patent No. Patent No. 7,791,455, titled “Method and Apparatus for Autonomous Detection of a Given Location or Situation,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,652,576, titled “Method and Apparatus for Locating And/Or Otherwise Monitoring an ID Tagged Asset’s Condition,” through the sale of air cargo tracking systems and devices.

OnAsset is represented by Christopher Joe and Monica Tavakoli, both of Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on OnAsset Intelligence Files Patent Case Against 7PSolutions

American Board of School Neuropsychology Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in Northern District of Texas

On September 11, 2012, American Board of School Neuropsychology, Inc. (“ABSNP”) sued Kindergarten Diagnostic Intervention Services, Inc., American Board of School Neuropsychology, LLC and Daniel C. Miller, Ph.D for trademark infringement (complaint available here). ABSNP claims that defendants infringe its common law trademark “American Board of School Neuropsychology” for use with its business of training and certifying diplomates in the discipline of school neuropsychology by, among other things, “impersonating ABSNP wholesale.”

ABSNP is represented by Joseph Coniglio and Anthony Matheny, both of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on American Board of School Neuropsychology Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in Northern District of Texas