Vuitton Malletier v. Morales ( 2007 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-1800
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
TITO MORALES d/b/a PARIS BAG COLLECTION,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Baldock,* and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reichard & Calaf, P.S.C., Federico Calaf-Legrand, and Vicente
A. Sequeda-Torres on brief, for appellee.
Julio E. Gil De Lamadrid for appellant.
January 10, 2007
*
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. This appeal derives from an action brought
by appellee Louis Vuitton Malletier against a host of vendors in
Puerto Rico, including appellant Tito Morales (d/b/a Paris Bags),
alleging that the vendors were selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton
merchandise. In due course, the district court entered judgment
against Morales, enjoined him from violating appellee's trademark
rights, and ordered that he pay $50,000 in damages. Morales
appeals.
Morales's arguments merit only a brief discussion.
First, Morales challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that
appellee introduced to support its claim. This argument fails to
comprehend that the district court entered a default judgment
against him. Thus, Morales was deemed to have conceded the truth
of appellee's factual allegations, see In re Home Restaurants,
Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002), which were adequate to
establish liability. Second, Morales contends that appellee failed
to establish actual damages. But this contention is also beside
the point because the district court awarded appellee statutory
damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Lastly, Morales argues that the
district court never acquired personal jurisdiction over him
because appellee's amended complaint was never properly served upon
him. This argument ignores the fact that Morales was initially
served with a "John Doe" complaint and appeared to contest
appellee's request for a preliminary injunction on the strength
-2-
thereof. Morales presents no coherent theory as to how the
improper service of a later filing (which, other than specifically
identifying prior "John Does," was identical to the original
complaint) divested the district court of personal jurisdiction
over him. And, in any event, Morales fails to question the
district court's alternative conclusion that any challenge to
personal jurisdiction was waived as untimely. See Fed R. Civ. P.
12(h).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Loc.
R. 27(c). Costs are awarded to appellee.1
1
In light of our conclusions, appellee's motion to file a
supplemental brief is denied.
-3-