Antounian v. Malletier
Filed 9/28/10 Antounian v. Malletier CA2/1
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
GEORGE ANTOUNIAN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B215034
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC396340)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Alan S. Rosenfield, Judge. Affirmed.
Macias
Counsel and Sean E. Macias; Law Offices of Willam F. LaSalle and William F.
LaSalle for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Steptoe
& Johnson, Mark A. Neubauer and Dylan Ruga for Defendants and Respondents
Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture, S.A.
Bird,
Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg, Mark T. Drooks and
Sharon Ben-Shahar for Defendants and Respondents Arent Fox LLP, Steven Kimelman
and Janine Gargiulo.
--------------------
In 2006, manufacturers of luxury goods Louis Vuitton
Malletier (Louis Vuitton), Christian Dior Couture, S.A. (Dior) (collectively,
Louis Vuitton/Dior), and Burberry Limited (Burberry), sued George and
Marijeanne Antounian (the Antounians), among others, in federal court,
asserting claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting alleged to have
occurred at the Antounians' store in Santee Alley in downtown Los Angeles. Burberry dismissed its claims against the
Antounians in March 2007. In April 2007,
the federal district court denied the Antounians' motion for summary judgment,
and in June 2007 the district court granted Louis Vuitton/Dior's motion to
dismiss the Antounians from the litigation, on the condition that the two
manufacturers pay the Antounians $75,875 in attorney's fees and costs.
In August
2008, the Antounians filed a malicious
prosecution action in superior court against Louis Vuitton/Dior, the
manufacturers' law firm Arent Fox LLP, and individual Arent Fox lawyers Steven
Kimelman and Janine Gargiulo (the lawyer defendants). Louis Vuitton/Dior and the lawyer defendants
filed separate motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16
(the anti-SLAPP statute),[1] and the trial court granted both motions in
early 2009. This appeal ensued.
BACKGROUND
I. The underlying 2006
lawsuit alleged counterfeiting activity by the Antounians at
Alley.
In 2004,
Louis Vuitton, Dior, Burberry, and other companies hired a company named
Investigative Consultants to investigate suspected counterfeiting activity on Santee
Street in downtown Los
Angeles, in an area referred to as Santee Alley. Santee Alley contains hundreds of shops,
booths, and stands that sell clothing, jewelry, handbags, and other items. One of the locations investigated was a
building whose address was 1116 Santee Street
(the Fisch Building), owned by Leonard B. Fisch and his company Fisch
Properties L.P. The Fisch
Building was divided into narrow
storefronts at eight business addresses leased and subleased to different
tenants, who were allowed to use the space in front of their stores, including
one-half of the column on either side of the storefront. The Antounians' store, Bijou
Palace,[2] was located at 1116 Santee Alley, between two
other businesses at 1116 1/2 and 1114 1/2 Santee Alley.[3]
After
Investigative Consultants reported counterfeiting activity in the Santee Alley
area, Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Burberry filed a federal complaint on July 10, 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, with Louis Vuitton/Dior
represented by the law firm Arent Fox (the 2006 federal action). The complaint alleged trademark infringement
and counterfeiting against a number of individuals and businesses, including
the Antounians and Bijou Palace. The complaint also asserted claims for
vicarious trademark counterfeiting against Leonard Fisch and Fisch Properties
(the landlord defendants).
The 60-page
complaint alleged numerous specific instances of counterfeiting activity based
on investigative reports, and attributed some counterfeiting activity to Bijou
Palace. After Arent Fox determined that the list of
alleged counterfeiting in the initial complaint did not properly distinguish
between 1116 Santee Alley (Bijou Palace)
and a different business at 1116 1/2 Santee Alley, Louis Vuitton, Dior, and
Burberry filed an amended complaint in December 2006. The amended complaint, also 60 pages long,
described the area as including â€
| Description | In 2006, manufacturers of luxury goods Louis Vuitton Malletier (Louis Vuitton), Christian Dior Couture, S.A. (Dior) (collectively, Louis Vuitton/Dior), and Burberry Limited (Burberry), sued George and Marijeanne Antounian (the Antounians), among others, in federal court, asserting claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting alleged to have occurred at the Antounians' store in Santee Alley in downtown Los Angeles. Burberry dismissed its claims against the Antounians in March 2007. In April 2007, the federal district court denied the Antounians' motion for summary judgment, and in June 2007 the district court granted Louis Vuitton/Dior's motion to dismiss the Antounians from the litigation, on the condition that the two manufacturers pay the Antounians $75,875 in attorney's fees and costs. |
| Rating |
