Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRUCE M. BATES v. KEN STARNES * * * Civil No. JFM-04-1956 * Exempt from ECF * ***** MEMORANDUM This action for trademark infringement was originally instituted by BIDJET COM, Inc. against JETBID LLC. BIDJET was not represented by counsel but by its founder, Bruce M. Bates. Bates was advised that under Local Rule 101.1.a only individuals may represent themselves and that the action could proceed only if BIDJET was represented by counsel. Bates then amended the complaint to delete BIDJET as a plaintiff and to substitute himself as the plaintiff instead, alleging that he was the owner of the trademark in question and that he had merely licensed the trademark to BIDJET. Thereafter, this court granted Bates leave to amend the complaint to add two new defendants, Kenneth Starnes and Travelsuite, Inc. as defendants. Presently pending are (1) a "motion request for judgment" (docket 17), (2) a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Ken Starnes (docket 18), (3) a "request for subpoena for Kenneth R. Starnes (docket 23), and (4) a letter from Bates requesting that "the Court . . . engage the U.S. Marshals service" to serve the amended complaint upon Travelsuite, Inc. I. My rulings are as follows. A. "Motion Request for Judgment." The Clerk has docketed this motion as a motion for entry of default for want of answer or

other defense. It appears that it might be appropriate to enter a default against JETBID because the record reflects that JETBID was served on September 29, 2004. See docket 12. If JETBID does intend to defend this action, it is directed to file a response to the "motion request for judgment" and to the complaint/amended complaint on or before April 22, 2005. JETBID is reminded that corporations may only appear through counsel in this court. See Local Rule 101.1.a. B. Starnes' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Starnes raises challenges both to this court's subject matter jurisdiction and to its authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Because plaintiff appears to be asserting violations of federal trademark infringement law, this court presumably has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

Download Bruce M. Bates v. Ken Starnes.pdf

Maryland Law