TOMMY HILFIGER LICENSING, INC. v. BRADLEES, INC. (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

99 Civ. 4467 (WK)

Attorney(S)

For Plaintiffs: Louis S. Ederer, Michael D. Pantalony, Gursky Ederer, P.C., New York, NY. For Defendants MD Sportswear Corp. and Dalia Wallach: Leonard S. Baum, Dean T. Cho, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer Sharp, New York, NY. For Defendant Bradlees, Inc.: Lawrence M. Sands, New York, NY; Jay T. Hahn, Goodwin, Proctor Hoar LLP, New York, NY. For Defendants BL Enterprises of NY, Inc. and Jack Schwartz: Lawrence M. Sands, New York, NY. For Defendant Marty Mirkin: William A. Rome, Hoffman Pollok Pickholz LLP, New York, NY.

Judges

Percy Whitman Knapp

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc., Prl Usa Holdings, Inc., Nike, Inc., Adidas-Salomon AG, Adidas International BV and Adidas America, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Bradlees, Inc., BL Enterprises Of Ny, Inc. a/k/a Misty Harbor Denim Sportswear, Summit Merchandising Ltd. a/k/a Misty Harbor Denim Sportswear, Jack Schwartz and Mayer Perez, Marty Mirkin a/k/a doing business as Pacific Bay and M.G.M. Clothing Corp. a/k/a M.G.M. Apparel, MD Sportswear Corp., Dalia Wallach, Andrez Shops, Inc., Shahin Ghaderi and Consolidated Stores Corporation, Defendants.

ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, Senior U.S.D.J.

While our decision with respect to Plaintiff Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc.'s, PRL USA Holdings, Inc.'s, Nike, Inc.'s, Adidas Salomon AG's, Adidas International BV's, and Adidas America's ("Plaintiffs") motion to dismiss Defendant MD Sportswear Corp.'s and Dalia Wallach's ("Defendants") malicious prosecution counterclaims was still pending, Defendants moved for leave to file an Amended Answer which would have added new counterclaims and new parties and amended and supplemented the original malicious prosecution counterclaims. Although we denied Defendants leave to add new counterclaims and new parties, we granted their request to amend and supplement the original malicious prosecution counterclaims by way of an Amended Answer. See Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Bradlees, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002) (unpublished memorandum and order).

Given that our decision has allowed Defendants to modify the allegations underlying the original malicious prosecution counterclaims which are the subject of Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss, we will permit the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing the amended counterclaims. Plaintiffs may file a concise supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (not exceeding twenty-five pages in length) which addresses any arguments arising from the amendments to the malicious prosecution counterclaims. Plaintiffs may file such a memorandum on or before January 29, 2002. Defendants may thereafter file a concise supplemental memorandum in response to Plaintiffs' brief (also not exceeding twenty-five pages in length) on or before February 12, 2002.

SO ORDERED.

Comments