United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
For Donut Joe's, Inc., Plaintiff: Joseph E Watson, III, THE WATSON FIRM, Birmingham, AL.
For Donut Chef, Defendant: Jade E Sipes, LEAD ATTORNEY, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL LLP, Birmingham, AL; G Thomas Sullivan, Diane B Maughan, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL, Birmingham, AL.
For Interveston Food Services, LLC, Defendant: Diane B Maughan, LEAD ATTORNEY, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL, Birmingham, AL; Jade E Sipes, LEAD ATTORNEY, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL LLP, Birmingham, AL.
For Donut Chef, Counter Claimant: Jade E Sipes, LEAD ATTORNEY, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL LLP, Birmingham, AL; Diane B Maughan, LEAD ATTORNEY, CABANISS JOHNSTON GARDNER DUMAS & O'NEAL, Birmingham, AL.
For Donut Joe's, Inc., Counter Defendant: Joseph E Watson, III, THE WATSON FIRM, Birmingham, AL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, United States District Judge.
This case is now before the court on a motion for attorney's fees (" the Motion" ) by Interveston Food Services, LLC (" Interveston" ).
(Doc. 74). Interveston filed the Motion on May 5, 2015, following the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Interveston as to all claims in this action. Donut Joe's, Inc. v. Interveston Food Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-CV-1578-VEH, 101 F.Supp.3d 1172, 2015 WL 1840431 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 22, 2015). In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(C), which permits the court to " decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of services," the Motion seeks only a determination of Donut Joe's, Inc.'s (" Donut Joe's" ) liability for attorney's fees and other additional fees under § 35(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)). (Doc. 74 at 1).
Donut Joe's has responded in opposition to the motion. (Doc. 77). Interveston has filed a reply brief. (Doc. 78). Therefore, the matter is now under submission. For the following reasons, the court holds that Donut Joe's is liable for attorney's fees in this case.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Donut Joe's commenced this action by filing a Complaint with this court on August 27, 2013. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleged federal and state-law claims against Werner Beiersdoerfer; Michael Kenneth Flowers (" Flowers" ); Donut Chef; Brock Beiersdoerfer; Heavenly Donut Co.; and Kimberly Beiersdoerfer. Three defendants -- Werner Beiersdoerfer, Flowers, and Interveston -- answered the Complaint on September 27, 2013. (Doc. 7). Attached to their Answer was a counterclaim charging Donut Joe's with breach of contract and fraud. ( Id. at 8-17). These three defendants also filed a Motion To Dismiss. (Doc. 8). On that same day, Brock and Kimberly Beiersdoerfer separately filed a Motion To Dismiss. (Doc. 10). On October 11, 2013, Donut Joe's filed the following documents: an Answer to the defendants' counterclaims; responses to the two Motions To Dismiss; and a Motion To Dismiss the counterclaims. (Docs. 11-14).
On December 18, 2013, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over all of the parties' state-law claims. (Doc. 27). The court accordingly dismissed without prejudice the state-law claims filed by Donut Joe's and the state-law ...