Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Central Mfg. Co. v. Brett

March 15, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: David H. Coar United States District Judge


Central Mfg. Co., Stealth Industries, Inc., and Leo Stoller (collectively referred to as "Central Mfg. Co.") brought an action for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair trade practices under state and federal law against defendants George Brett and Brett Brothers Sports International, Inc ("Brett Bros."). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and on September 30, 2005, this Court issued an opinion granting judgment to Brett Bros. on all claims, canceling Plaintiff's trademark registration, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Defendants. Before this Court is Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

With each additional filing, the nature of this case becomes more confused rather than less. Examples of irregular behavior on plaintiffs' part abound. Judge Lindberg's opinion in Central Mfg. Co. v. Pure Fishing, Inc., et al., No. 05 C 0725, noted that Plaintiffs admitted that Central Mfg. Co. was a business name for Central Mfg. Inc., a Delaware corporation. Pure Fishing, Inc., No. 05 C 0725, Mem. Op. at 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2005). On January 26, 2006, this Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement setting forth the grounds on which Central Mfg. Co. had standing to bring the Complaint.

The original complaint was brought on behalf of "Stealth Industries, Inc., a corporation," and made no mention of either Central Mfg. Co. or Leo Stoller. Stealth Industries was described as a corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Sometime after August 14, 2004, Plaintiff amended his complaint. This amended complaint was never properly filed and docketed with this Court and is accessible only as an attachment to subsequent filings. It is not this Court's responsibility to ensure that parties properly file pleadings; that is up to the parties. The amended complaint listed as plaintiffs: "Central Mfg. Co., a Delaware corporation, Stealth Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Leo Stoller." Upon closer inspection, additional problems arise. Central Mfg. Co. is not a Delaware corporation. Indeed, Central Mfg. Co. is not an independent corporate entity at all, but rather an assumed name or d/b/a for Central Mfg. Inc., a Delaware corporation. See Pure Fishing, Inc., No. 05 C 2052, mem. op. at 2, 5 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2005). But Central Mfg. Inc. is not and never was named in the instant litigation, despite multiple amendments to the parties named in the complaint. This was not a pro se complaint.

The two corporate plaintiffs have been represented by counsel throughout the litigation,*fn1 as they must be.

Contrary to the statements in Central Mfg. Co.'s amended complaints, it is not an independent legal entity and it is not incorporated under Delaware law. Stoller, however, has registered "Central Mfg. Co. of Illinois" as an assumed name for "Central Mfg. Inc." with the Illinois Secretary of State. But again, Stoller proceeded by setting the proverbial cart before the horse. Even a cursory comparison of the complaint with the Illinois Secretary of State's "Real Time Corporate/LLC Database" discloses that Stoller did not register Central Mfg. Co. or Central Mfg. Inc. as foreign corporations in Illinois until July 11, 2005--over fourteen months after filing the complaint at bar. In addition, the Secretary of State's database reveals that Stealth Industries, Inc. is not currently registered in Illinois at all.*fn2 Accordingly, this Court directed Plaintiffs to file a statement setting forth the basis, if any, on which they, and in particular, Central Mfg. Co., have standing in this matter, and the impact of registering a foreign corporation after commencing a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois.

In their statement to this Court, Plaintiffs assert that Central Mfg. Co. was properly before this Court because the Illinois Business Corporation Act ("IBCA"), 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1.01 et seq., which sets forth the requirements for registering a foreign corporation to do business in Illinois, does not constitute a jurisdictional bar to foreign corporations in Illinois courts. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the pleadings must simply be sufficient to put the opposing party "on notice" about the identity of the plaintiff and any claims or defenses alleged. They also contend that any defects in Plaintiffs' registration reflected mere "misnomer" or "oversight," rather than an attempt to obscure plaintiffs' true identity. Finally, plaintiffs contend that because Congress derives its power to protect trademarks from the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the IBCA cannot work to deny standing or capacity to sue to a foreign corporation doing business in Illinois.

Section 13.70 of the IBCA states that "[n]o foreign corporation transacting business in this State without a certificate of authority is permitted to maintain a civil action in any court of this State, until the corporation obtains a certificate of authority." 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13.70. The statute goes on to state that a foreign corporation that transacts business in Illinois without a certificate is liable for fees, taxes, penalties and other charges that would have been levied during the time it transacted business without a certificate. Id.

"Incapacity to sue is a defense that must be made out by the defendants." Dixie Cotton Felt Mattress Co. v. Stearns & Foster Co., 185 F. 431, 434 (7th Cir. 1911). Illinois courts have permitted suits by unregistered foreign corporations transacting business in Illinois on the grounds that if the corporation obtain a certificate of authority, it could proceed with the suit. Emcee Corp. v. George, 12 N.E.2d 333, 335 (Ill. App. Ct. 1938); see also Hulburt Oil & Grease Co. v. Hulburt Oil & Grease Co., 371 F.2d 251 (7th Cir. 1966). If, however, a company only engages in isolated transactions, then it is not doing business in Illinois within the meaning of the statute and accordingly, is not required to register. Wirth Ltd. v. Silvretta, 575 F. Supp. 1274, 1276 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (citing Charter Fin. Co. v. Henderson, 326 N.E.2d 372, 326-27 (Ill. 1975)). In addition, where a foreign corporation can demonstrate that it is engaged in interstate commerce in Illinois, it is not required to obtain a certificate of authority and may bring an action in an Illinois court. See, e.g., Subway Rests., Inc. v. Riggs, 696 N.E.2d 733, 737 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998); Mass Transfer Inc. v. Vincent Constr. Co., 585 N.E.2d 1286, 1289-90 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992); Buckingham Corp. v. Modern Liquors, Inc., 306 N.E.2d 650, 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973).

Incapacity to sue would affect only plaintiffs' ability to bring a claim under Illinois law. See Kansas Quality Constr., Inc. v. Chiasson, 250 N.E.2d 785, 788 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969) ("an out of state corporation with an Illinois based cause of action can't sue until it has a certificate"). Thus, in the instant case, it would only affect Plaintiffs' Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510/1 et seq., claim. However, defendants did not raise incapacity as a defense to the amended complaint. Moreover, Stoller did register Central Mfg. Inc. and its assumed name, Central Mfg. Co. of Illinois, with the Illinois Secretary of State during the pendency of this litigation. This Court, therefore, finds that Central Mfg. Co. of Illinois has standing to bring this motion for reconsideration.

Standard of Review

A motion for reconsideration does not exist as such under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, Plaintiffs have filed a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A court may grant a motion to amend a judgment in three circumstances: 1) there is newly discovered evidence; 2) there has been an intervening change in the law; or 3) the judgment reflects a manifest error in the law. Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998). A "manifest error" is a "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent" on the part of the court. Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Such situations rarely occur, however, and the motion to reconsider should likewise be rare. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).


At the outset, this Court notes that in light of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, this case is automatically stayed as to Plaintiff Leo Stoller. 11 U.S.C. ยง 362(a)(1). The following discussion applies to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.