Court filing
Memorandum in Support regarding 15 MOTION PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN… — Blueacorn Beringer (Dkt. 16)
No. 5:21-cv-00251-BO · Doc. 16 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Beringer Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Blue Acorn iCi's memorandum supporting its motion to hold defendants in contempt and for damages, costs and fees, filed June 16, 2021 as Doc. 16 in No. 5:21-cv-00251-BO, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Defendants are Fin Cap, Inc. d/b/a Blueacorn.co, Blue Acorn PPP, LLC, Blue Oak Forest, LLC, Michael S. Cota, Jimmy Flores, Stephanie Hockridge Reis and Nathan Reis. It states that defendants have failed to comply in most material respects with the TRO entered June 11, 2021. As a close approximation, it reports 930 calls to plaintiff's Raleigh office about defendants' business in March 2021 and 2,558 from April 11, 2021 to May 10, 2021. Exhibit A is redacted consumer complaints, Exhibit B counsel's communications with the Corporate Defendants' attorneys, and Exhibit C screenshots taken on the motion's date.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-251-BO
BERINGER COMMERCE, INC. d/b/a
BLUE ACORN iCi,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
FIN CAP, INC. d/b/a PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD
“BLUEACORN.CO,” BLUE ACORN DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF
PPP, LLC, BLUE OAK FOREST, LLC, COURT AND FOR AWARD OF
MICHAEL S. COTA, JIMMY FLORES, DAMAGES, COSTS, AND FEES
STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE REIS, and
NATHAN REIS,
Defendants.
NOW COMES Plaintiff BERINGER COMMERCE, INC. d/b/a BLUE ACORN iCi (“Blue
Acorn iCi” or “Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, and submits this Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court and for Award of
Damages, Costs, and Fees (“Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion”) against Defendants FIN CAP, INC.
d/b/a “BLUEACORN.CO,” BLUE ACORN PPP, LLC, BLUE OAK FOREST, LLC, MICHAEL
S. COTA, JIMMY FLORES, STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE REIS and NATHAN REIS
(collectively “Defendants”). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint (“Compl.”), [DE-1], seeking
relief for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, and
unfair and deceptive trade practices based on Defendants’ operation of an Infringing “Blue Acorn
PPP” business. This business purports to assist small businesses and contractors in obtaining loans
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 19
through the federal Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) using marks that blatantly infringe upon
Plaintiff’s superior and exclusive rights to the “blue acorn” name and associated intellectual
property.
As detailed in the Verified Complaint, Compl. ¶ 62, Defendants are operating their business
though the following websites:
https://blueacorn.co/
https://blueppp.net/
https://blueppp.com/
https://ppp.businesswarrior.com/
https://getblueacorn.com/
https://howndppp.com/
In addition to Defendants’ pervasive use of the “blue acorn” name and infringing logo
throughout their websites, Defendants’ marketing materials also use infringing marks, including
an exact copy of Plaintiff’s Acorn Logo, prominently displayed on their YouTube video
advertisement and other social media platforms. Compl. ¶¶ 67, 79-83.
As a direct result of Defendants’ widespread marketing and blatant infringement of
Plaintiff’s “blue acorn” name and marks, significant, actual consumer confusion has occurred and
continues to occur in the marketplace. Specifically, Defendants’ unabated actions have caused
thousands of consumers to believe, mistakenly, that Blue Acorn iCi is associated with Defendants
or is providing Defendants’ PPP business.
Contemporaneously with the filing of the Verified Complaint, Plaintiff also sought a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. [DE-8]. On June 11, 2021, this
Court sua sponte entered a Temporary Restraining Order that in very plain terms, required
2
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 19
Defendants to cease their infringing activities with respect to Plaintiff’s intellectual property and
to take certain remedial actions [DE-14] (“TRO Order”). Specifically, the Court’s TRO Order
unequivocally ordered the following:
To date, despite actual knowledge of the TRO Order, Defendants have failed to comply
with the TRO Order in most material respects.
Additionally, Plaintiff has continued to receive unceasing calls and consumer complaints
tied to Defendants’ PPP business activities since the filing of the Verified Complaint. As
demonstrated in the redacted consumer complaints attached as Exhibit A 1 and incorporated here
by reference, actual consumer confusion continues to date and demonstrates the ongoing
1
The consumer complaints attached as Exhibit A have been redacted to remove sensitive, personally-
identifying information of third parties. In the interest of expediency, Plaintiff submits this redacted version
in support of Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion, but will provide unredacted versions to Defendants upon request
or seek to file unredacted versions under seal at the Court’s direction.
3
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 19
reputational harm at issue. For example, the following email received from a consumer on June
15, 2021, after Plaintiff’s numerous communications to correct his confusion, is illustrative:
See Exhibit A. The following letter received in June from another consumer is equally
illustrative:
See Exhibit A.
Further, Defendants have failed to cure their violations of the Court’s TRO Order despite
notice and an opportunity to do so. As a result of Defendants’ blatant failure to comply with the
TRO Order, Plaintiff now brings the instant motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Communications with Defendants Prior to Filing
As further outlined in the Verified Complaint, Plaintiff has made exhaustive attempts to
address the deluge of complaints and consumer confusion prior to filing the instant action.
4
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 19
Specifically, Plaintiff sent two cease & desist letters outlining Defendants’ blatant infringement
and resulting harm to Plaintiff on April 8, 2021 and on May 26, 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 114-123.
Following the second cease & desist letter, the undersigned was contacted by attorney Jeff
Meyerson from the law firm of Radix Law in Scottsdale, Arizona, who represents Fin Cap, Inc.
d/b/a “Blueacorn.co,” Blue Acorn PPP, LLC, and Blue Oak Forest, LLC (“Corporate
Defendants”). True and accurate copies of the undersigned’s communications with all attorneys
representing the Corporate Defendants are attached collectively as Exhibit B and incorporated
here by reference.
Specifically, on May 27, 2021, Mr. Meyerson stated:
Notably, Mr. Meyerson made no claim whatsoever that the Defendants were not engaged
in blatant infringement and offered no other defense to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or cease &
desist requests. Due to the degree of consumer confusion and associated reputational harm, which
necessitated Defendants’ immediate actions to comply with the TRO Order, the undersigned
responded to Mr. Meyerson as follows on May 28, 2021:
When the undersigned subsequently spoke to Mr. Meyerson over the phone, he was able
to provide additional information about the Defendants, including the involvement of Blue Oak
5
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 5 of 19
Forrest, LLC, but did not indicate that Defendants were willing stop using the “blue acorn” name,
but instead wanted to pursue an alternative solution. The undersigned clearly reiterated Plaintiff’s
position that it has a longstanding brand and business reputation to protect, but nevertheless invited
Mr. Meyerson to provide an alternative solution to avoid legal action.
Unfortunately, the undersigned heard nothing further from Mr. Meyerson on June 1,
2021—the deadline to cease all infringing activities—or any time over the next ten (10) days. As
stated in the Verified Complaint, Defendants failed completely to provide any alternative solution
to address Defendants’ infringement and consumer confusion and further failed to take any of the
actions outlined in the second cease & desist letter. Compl. ¶¶ 120-123.
Meanwhile, during this time, the volume of calls Plaintiff received regarding Defendant’s
business activities continued to escalate. During March 2021, Plaintiff’s Raleigh office received
930 such calls; for the period between April 11, 2021 and May 10, 2021, received 2,558 such calls;
and for the period between May 10, 2021 and June 7, 2011, received 3,750 such calls. 2
Given Defendants’ silence, total failure to work with the undersigned toward any possible
solution, and further failure to remedy the numerous acts of infringement, Plaintiff was forced to
file this action, incurring significant fees and costs in doing so.
B. The Filing of the Instant Action
As the Court is well aware, on June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Verified Complaint, with
voluminous exhibits documenting Defendants’ blatant infringement, the significant degree of
actual consumer confusion impacting Plaintiff’s business activities and reputation, and Plaintiff’s
futile attempts to obtain relief short of legal action. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. [DE-8].
2
These numbers are a close approximation as Plaintiff is in the process of confirming these numbers through records
from its telephone provider.
6
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 6 of 19
On June 11, 2021, the office of the undersigned began the process of service on Defendants
and also sent a copy of all filed materials to Mr. Meyerson via email. In response, Mr. Meyerson
acknowledged receipt of the materials and requested that Plaintiff copy attorney Michael Dvoren
on all future communications, noting that Mr. Dvoren “is the company’s trademark counsel and
will be addressing these issues moving forward.” See Exhibit B.
Later in the afternoon of June 11, 2021, the Court entered the TRO Order.
C. Communications with Defendants After Entry of the TRO Order
At 4:17 p.m. on June 11, 2021, the undersigned sent a complete copy of the TRO Order to
Mr. Meyerson and trademark counsel, Michael Dvoren. Because the undersigned counsel
appreciated the Order would require Defendants to undertake several actions to fully comply,
including taking down and rerouting websites with the “blue acorn” name and removing all
infringing “blue acorn” marks, the undersigned counsel asked that Defendants’ counsel “provide
us with confirmation of compliance with each item of this Order by Monday, June 14, 2021.”
Exhibit B. This provided Defendants’ three days in which to complete the items ordered by this
Court.
From the time Corporate Defendants have had actual notice of this Court’s Order on June
11 to the date of this Motion on June 16, 2021, Defendants have failed to comply with the Order
in most material respects. 3
On Monday, June 14, 2021, Mr. Meyerson emailed the following statement:
Our clients (Fin Cap, Inc., Blue Acorn PPP, LLC and Blue Oak Forest, LLC only) are
working diligently to comply with the TRO. They’ve already placed a conspicuous
disclaimer on the https://blueacorn.co/ home page and have a dedicated support page
linked from the disclaimer to https://blueacorn.co/support/. They’ve also changed the logo
3
To date, the undersigned is unaware of any counsel representing the individual Defendants and has been attempting
to serve them with a copy of the TRO Order as directed by this Court. Service efforts are ongoing. Nonetheless, given
the relationship between the individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendants, it would strain credulity for the
individual Defendants to claim they have no knowledge of the instant lawsuit or the Court’s entry of the TRO Order.
7
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 7 of 19
on the YouTube channel (see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAiOYwr-
WYtOisKibpOI3Ig). Other actions are still in progress. We’ll update you as those advance.
Exhibit B.
Not only did the content of Mr. Meyerson’s email confirm that Defendants have no intent
whatsoever to comply with this Court’s Order, an investigation of the items offered for compliance
further demonstrate clear, flagrant defiance of this Court’s TRO Order.
First, Defendants’ June 14, 2021 statement about changes Defendants have made to their
www.blueacorn.co website patently demonstrates they have no intention of complying with
Paragraph 1 of the Court’s Order, which unambiguously requires Defendants to stop using the
“blue acorn” name in any form or on any platform, including websites.
The existence and use of the www.blueacorn.co website itself represents the central core
of Defendants’ infringing activities from which the vast amount of consumer confusion billows.
Anything short of full compliance with the Court’s order to cease and desist from use of the “blue
acorn” name on or in or through any website connected with Defendants, including the name of
the website itself, is no compliance at all.
Second, Defendants’ June 14, 2021 statement that they removed the infringing Acorn Logo
from the YouTube advertisement is equally confounding and disingenuous. When the undersigned
attempted to verify the removal of the Acorn Logo, the following appeared:
Thus, while Defendants removed the Acorn Logo image from where it previously
appeared, they merely replaced it with yet another infringing mark.
8
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 8 of 19
Defendants’ attempt to “comply” with the Court’s TRO Order by replacing an infringing
mark with an equally infringing mark is entirely confounding and completely ineffective in curing
the ongoing infringement and confusion caused by Defendants’ use of the “blue acorn” name. To
the contrary, Defendants’ actions—with full knowledge of the Court’s TRO Order—only
perpetuate the confusion, harm, and cost to Plaintiff while failing utterly to demonstrate any
modicum of deference to this Court and the plain language of its TRO Order.
Third, an inspection of Defendants’ multiple websites and social medial platforms on June
14, 2021s showed that Defendants had not taken any steps to remove the following infringing
mark:
Again, in direct contravention of the Court’s Order, Defendants have been ordered to stop
using the infringing “blue acorn” name in any form. When the undersigned counsel reminded Mr.
Meyerson that Defendants’ continued, infringing use of this mark was a clear violation of the
Court’s Order, the undersigned attempted give Defendants’ the benefit of doubt that perhaps
removal of these marks was an oversight or part of the “in progress” actions noted by Mr.
Meyerson in his June 14, 2021 email.
Unfortunately, Defendants’ behavior since June 14, 2021 unequivocally shows that they
should be afforded no benefit of doubt as there is none. As shown in the materials attached as
Exhibit C and incorporated here by reference, screenshots taken on the date of this Motion and in
the hours leading up to its filing show that Defendants have no intention of complying with this
Court’s June 11, 2021 Order.
9
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 9 of 19
Defendants are still using their www.blueacorn.co and www.getblueacorn.com websites;
Defendants are still using the “blue acorn” logo on all their websites and social media platforms;
and Defendants are still using the Acorn Logo on social media pages. In addition, Defendants’
infringing www.blueacorn.co website proudly touting Defendants’ ability to obtain over “$8
Billion” in PPP loans for its customers confirms that Defendants have the financial resources to
immediately and fully comply with the TRO Order.
See Exhibit C.
However, other than replacing the Acorn Logo on one of their YouTube pages (and
replacing it with another infringing mark) and uploading extremely small disclaimer language right
under the large, infringing “blue acorn” name, Defendants have done virtually nothing to comply
with the Court’s TRO Order.
When the undersigned brought these blatant compliance failures to Defendants’ counsels’
attention on June 14, 2021, the undersigned requested confirmation of full compliance to be
received by June 15, 2021. Such confirmation was not provided.
On the afternoon of June 15, 2021, and while waiting on confirmation of compliance from
Mr. Meyerson, the undersigned received a phone call from attorneys John McElwaine from the
Charleston, South Carolina office of Nelson Mullins and Chris Blake from the firm’s Raleigh
10
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 10 of 19
office. During that call, Mr. McElwaine and Mr. Blake indicated they had also been retained to
represent the Corporate Defendants in this action and indicated they were considering filing a
motion to dissolve this Court’s June 11, 2021 Order on the grounds that it was entered without an
“attorney certification.” Mr. McElwaine and Mr. Blake further confirmed they had received the
undersigned counsel’s June 14, 2021 communications with Mr. Meyerson and Mr. Dvoren
outlining Defendants’ continued, flagrant defiance of this Court’s Order. Mr. McElwaine and Mr.
Blake did not substantively address these continued failures or provide any indication to
undersigned counsel that these violations would be cured.
Finally, it is noted that the disclaimer language Mr. Meyerson represented to have posted
on or before June 14, 2021 did not actually appear on the “blueacorn.co” home page until late this
afternoon, June 16, 2021. While Plaintiff appreciates Defendants’ efforts—albeit deficient—to
comply with Paragraph 3 of the TRO Order with respect to the www.blueacorn.co home page, it
is impossible to overlook Defendants’ other, glaring failures to comply with the rest of the TRO
Order, including retention of large infringing marks on that very same page. See Exhibit C.
Indeed, the www.blueacorn.co website itself and its home page continue to boldly display
the infringing “blue acorn” name and logo, which this Court has unequivocally ordered Defendants
to remove. Even worse, Defendants’ addition of “disclaimer” language the very afternoon of this
filing (which itself is not fully compliant with the directives of the TRO Order) proves Defendants
have had sufficient notice, awareness, knowledge, counsel, resources, finances, time, and
ability to conform to some aspects of the TRO Order. However, this only serves to shine a spotlight
on Defendants’ evident decision to defy this Court in all other material respects. Apparently,
Defendants have simply decided for themselves which paragraphs of the Court’s Order that it will
comply with and which paragraphs they will just ignore.
11
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 11 of 19
Notably, throughout all communications with the Corporate Defendants, not once has any
defense been put forward regarding the core, underlying facts pled in the Verified Complaint, the
infringing conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff’s right to relief under state and federal law, or the
authority of this Court to grant that relief. Rather, Defendants’ counsels’ communications indicate
Defendants have 1) full knowledge of their infringement; 2) full knowledge of the Court’s TRO
Order; 3) clear ability to comply with the Order; 4) ample time to comply with the Order; and 4)
despite all this, no intent to comply.
The undersigned is not aware of any clearer case for relief by way of contempt and an
award of severe monetary sanctions and payment of all attorneys’ fees and costs.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“Violations of injunctions entered by this Court are punishable as contempt of court.”
Rainbow Sch., Inc. v. Rainbow Early Educ. Holding LLC, No. 5:14-CV-482-BO, 2016 WL
7243538, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2016) (unpublished), aff’d, 887 F.3d 610 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing
Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 833 (1994)). “To ensure
compliance with its orders, a district court has the inherent authority to hold parties in civil
contempt.” Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887 F.3d at 617 (citing Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 264,
270 (1966)). Civil contempt is designed to coerce future behavior, and this inherent authority
“includes the ability to award damages and attorney’s fees to an aggrieved party.” Id. (citing Hutto
v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 691 (1987)).
“Civil contempt may . . . be punished by a remedial fine, which compensates the party who
won the injunction for the effects of his opponent’s noncompliance.” Hutto, 437 U.S. at 691. “A
court may impose sanctions for civil contempt ‘to coerce obedience to a court order or to
compensate the complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.’” Cromer v. Kraft
12
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 12 of 19
Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 821 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d
256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995)). A party can be held in civil contempt when there is clear and convincing
evidence of the following four elements:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor
had actual or constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the
movant’s favor; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct
violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least
constructive knowledge) of such violations; and (4) that the movant
suffered harm as a result.
Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887 F.3d at 617 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“[w]illfulness is not an element of civil contempt.” In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 258
(citation omitted). Upon finding civil contempt, district courts have broad discretion to determine
an appropriate remedy. Id. at 259.
Every element of civil contempt is clearly and convincedly shown here.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Defendants had knowledge of the Court’s June 11, 2021 TRO Order
The first element to support a finding of civil contempt is “the existence of a valid decree
of which the alleged contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge”. Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887
F.3d at 617. The Court’s TRO Ordered was signed, entered, and published on the docket of record
in this matter on June 11, 2021, and has not since been reversed, amended, altered, or withdrawn.
See Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (reversing an order to seal certain
documents and holding that it was not a valid decree to support a finding of civil contempt).
Here, the Corporate Defendants have actual knowledge of the TRO Order as shown by
their counsels’ communications acknowledging the existence, applicability, and responsibility to
comply with the TRO Order. In addition, despite their fundamental deficiencies, the validly and
knowledge of the Order is further evidenced by the Corporate Defendants’ ability to comply with
13
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 13 of 19
some aspects of the Order. The Corporate Defendants’ knowledge should be imputed to the
individual Defendants given the relationship between all Defendants. As such, all Defendants have
at least constructive knowledge of the existence of the TRO Order.
B. The June 11, 2021 TRO Order was in Plaintiff’s Favor
The second element to support a finding of civil contempt is that “the decree is in movant’s
favor.” Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887 F.3d at 617. This element is easily met. The Court’s TRO Order
required Defendants to cease all infringing activities with respect to Plaintiff’s intellectual property
and to take certain remedial actions regarding the same—all of which are in Plaintiff’s favor.
C. Defendants Violated the June 11, 2021 TRO Order and had Knowledge of the
Same
The third element to support a finding of civil contempt is “that the alleged contemnor by
its conduct violated the terms of the decree and had knowledge (at least constructive knowledge)
of such violations.” Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887 F.3d at 617. As discussed above, Defendants have
flagrantly failed to comply with the Court’s TRO Order in most material respects. Indeed,
Defendants have failed to cease using the “blue acorn” name; have removed some of the Acorn
Logo images, but have simply replaced them with yet another infringing mark; and are still using
the infringing blue acorn mark on all their websites and social media platforms.
The undersigned brought these blatant compliance failures to the attention of Corporate
Defendants’ counsel on June 14, 2021, giving Defendants notice and an opportunity to cure these
defects. And yet, as of the filing of this Motion, Defendants have filed to cure these deficiencies.
In addition, Defendants’ addition of the noncompliant “disclaimer” language this afternoon proves
they have had sufficient notice, awareness, knowledge, counsel, resources, time, and ability to
conform to some aspects of the Court’s TRO Order, while inexplicably failing to comply with the
vast majority of this Court’s directives, particularly those that are at the heart of Plaintiff’s
14
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 14 of 19
infringement claims and actual consumer confusion. Defendants’ conduct is not an accident or an
oversight. It is intentional and demonstrates a stunning level of defiance before this Court.
D. Plaintiff Suffered Harm as a Result of Defendants’ Violations of the June 11, 2021
TRO Order
The fourth and final element to support a finding of civil contempt is “that the movant
suffered harm as a result.” Rainbow Sch., Inc., 887 F.3d at 617. In finding civil contempt for failure
to comply with an injunction regarding intellectual property, this Court has previously recognized
the presumed harm that flows from intellectual property infringement. See Rainbow Sch., Inc.,
2016 WL 7243538, at *3. Further, in determining that entry of the TRO was warranted, this Court
made specific findings regarding the harm being suffered by Plaintiff:
Specifically, plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated on the basis of
its pleadings that it will suffer irreparable injury in the form of actual
consumer confusion, the likelihood of continued consumer
confusion, plaintiff’s inability to conduct its own business affairs
due to the volume of defendants’ customer complaints directed to
plaintiff, and serious reputational harm such that temporary
emergency relief is warranted.
TRO Order [DE-14] at 2. This harm that existed at the time the Court entered the TRO Order on
June 11, 2021, has only continued in the interim given Defendants’ refusal to cease their infringing
activities and comply with this Court’s TRO Order. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred significant,
additional attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as continued reputational loss and business interruption
with resultant financial harm.
Unfortunately, as of the date and time of this Motion, Defendants’ brazen defiance of this
Court’s directives remain the status quo. The materials attached as Exhibits A through C show:
1) Defendants’ continued violations of the TRO Order; 2) undersigned counsels’ attempts to obtain
compliance; 3) Plaintiff’s ongoing and immediate need for injunctive relief; 4) the ongoing harm
15
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 15 of 19
to Plaintiff, including monetary damages and reputational loss; and 5) the need for immediate
action on this Motion to compel Defendants’ compliance.
In summary, clear and convincing evidence showing all four elements are present to
support a finding of civil contempt against Defendants regarding their failure to comply with this
Court’s clear and unequivocal directives in the TRO Order. This Court should exercise its inherent
authority and determine that Defendants are in contempt of its June 11, 2021 TRO Order.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Blue Acorn iCi requests that this Court grant its Motion to
Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court and for Award of Damages, Costs, and Fees, and grant the
following relief:
i. An Order holding Defendants in contempt of Court based on their violations of this
Court’s TRO Order entered on June 11, 2021 [DE-14] and failure to cure such
violations, despite adequate notice and ample opportunity to cure;
ii. An Order compelling Defendants to fully and strictly comply with this Court’s June
11, 2021 Order by Friday, June 16, 2021 based on the record before the Court and
the certification of undersigned counsel pursuant to this Motion of all efforts made
by Plaintiff to obtain Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Order and state and
federal law, as well as the specific reasons why immediate relief is needed without
a further hearing;
iii. An Order of damages in an amount to be determined by this Court after an
opportunity to be heard regarding the same;
iv. An Order awarding Plaintiff all costs associated with the investigation, filing, and
prosecution of this Motion, including attorneys’ fees, to be provided by the
undersigned through an affidavit; and
v. Any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of June, 2021.
16
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 16 of 19
/s/ Beth A. Stanfield
Beth A. Stanfield (N.C. State Bar No. 36296)
Thomas Babel (N.C. State Bar No. 35004)
Laura K. Greene (N.C. State Bar No. 47771)
FORREST FIRM, P.C.
105 Grace Street, Suite 101
Wilmington, NC 28401
T/F: (336) 275 - 6344
beth.stanfield@forrestfirm.com
thomas.babel@forrestfirm.com
katie.greene@forrestfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 17 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT AND FOR AWARD OF DAMAGES, COSTS, AND FEES has been filed with the
Clerk for the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, using the electronic
filing system of the Court and that the foregoing was served upon the following persons as follow:
By placing a copy, contained in a first-class, postage paid wrapper, into a depository
under the exclusive custody of the United States Postage Service, addressed to the
parties as indicated below:
Michael S. Cota James M. Flores
2138 S. Valle Verde Cir 7833 E. Harvard Street
Mesa, AZ 85209 Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Stephanie Hockridge Reis Nathan Reis
4747 N. Scottsdale Road, Unit C 4747 N. Scottsdale Road, Unit C
Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Scottsdale, AZ 85251
For the Corporate Defendants:
Blue Oak Forest, LLC Blue Acorn PPP, LLC
c/o Delaware Registered Agents & c/o Radix Law, PLC, Registered Agent
Incorporators, LLC 15205 N. Kierland Blvd, Ste 200,
19 Kris Court Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Newark, DE 19702
Fin Cap, Inc. d/b/a "Blueacorn.co"
c/o Legalinc Corporate Services Inc.
5830 E 2nd St Ste 8
Casper, WY 82609
By placing a copy, contained in a first-class, postage paid wrapper, into a depository
under the exclusive custody of the United States Postage Service, and electronically
mailing as addressed to the parties as indicated below:
Michael B. Dvoren Jeff Meyerson
Jaburg Wilk Radix Law, PLC,
3200 N. Central Avenue 15205 N. Kierland Blvd, Ste 200,
Suite 2000 Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phoenix, AZ 85012 Meyerson@radixlaw.com
mbd@jaburgwilk.com
18
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 18 of 19
John McElwaine Christopher J. Blake
Nelson Mullins Nelson Mullins
Liberty Center GlenLake One
151 Meeting Street 4140 Parklake Avenue
Suite 600 Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29401 Raleigh, NC 27612
john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com chris.blake@nelsonmullins.com
This the 16th day of June, 2021.
/s/ Beth A. Stanfield
Beth A Stanfield
Thomas Babel
Laura K. Greene
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO Document 16 Filed 06/16/21 Page 19 of 19
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nced.187990.16.0.pdf
- Size
- 744,167 bytes
- SHA-256
- afc6d50460604e5626c4cb7e6e14a7f660226490c32337a73d0a0736903d75f5
- Original
- PACER (login required)