# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Soro v. Citicorp

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2585%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 498 U.S. 854

## Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY
AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A
BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE
WILL BE ISSUED,

CS ee oo —

RR Fe

py wn) Win Mw UNTNI) STAT CS
UY ma ut AiR M% JN Da av Jsahi Lv

nN wyra* my 3 ‘ OC) IT. a, 10 ae Fn m af. 18>¢8
iLdliw Ms aun As A/ A PSTITIUNERS

.are um

,rn 1 . oe - ee TAs? ,
CITICURP VIM GAT CUPPA LitUe

¥ + ROT | ied ’ . \ wr
g42 Vi’ rp 4 ie Siase 9 i Tey ae Sa 1
‘
ywrTNT ' ' f Y “VIX DMT «1
} STITIUN POR wRia vs CsantilnaAns

1) m ' I mn , rem
WOR Daaee S6e0.04 "2 eet vs 7 aA
‘
r TY t von OB wT non rn] A r
/ be my ,
nop Ge Se oP SV PrUum wid L sonid JitlAcild
luv aw Le wo ‘
‘
‘ Ormmityn s o° .
sph uN wsJIN.wAuG UU.

-~
39 ;- Alton Road

MIAMI BSACH, FLA. 33'3

(305) 674-1425

Supreme Court, U.
EFILEQ

QOSEPH F. SPANIOM,
; CLERK

rr reer eC See SCS SP SHE 8 ESS SSS aS 5 alia LDP LP LDL Pe De Me BREF IRI RRR BB RRR TT ee

‘
‘
+
4
—
_
‘
a
: :
c. =
4
s es
-3
‘
4

FLA .
5

b

ACt

,

TTAMT Ps

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals for
the 11 Circuit erred in afferming the opinon of
the Honorable District Court in not holding the
term "citicorp" GENERIC, INVALID, FRAUDULENTLY
OBTAINED, UNENFORCABLE, FATALLY WEAR and
EXTENSEVELY USED BY THOUSANDS OF FLORIDA CORP-
oratioms and failed to Cancel the registration
# (9827066) as provided by 15 U.S.C.§ 1119
McCarthy suprag 12:18 at 441-42 and failed to
observe that confusion between service marks
and similarty of appearance is determined on
the basis of the total effectof the designation
rather that on a comparision of individual

features.

2. Whether the Honorable Court of Apeals for
the 11 Circuit error in afferming the opinion of
the Honorable District Court when it abused its
discretion in the order signed which states that

the counter claims filed by Soro are dismissed

as untimely and. for lack of standing and failed
to realize that this was the first and only time
I was offered to file them and request a jury

trial to prevent a massive debacle in Florida.

3. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals for
the 11 Circuit abused its discreation in granting

Respondent's summary judgment filed out of time.

[a

TASLE CF CUNTANTS

iPEMICNS BRROW. . . 1 et ww ee —
IUNTSDICTIOM 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RROVISIONS I?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE... .
RYASUNS POR GRAVTING THs axl? .

CONCLUSION * . . . . * . . . . . . . .

jt

if

TAALS JF ALUTMORITI 4:

OTITLOT Bank v.
SUNTHUS? tank ¢
97-13 14-Civ]= ALi (tiwi;

Chase Fedewl ian: yy.
Chase Manhattan “‘ank G
Rim 1E§P—-Civewti (Miwi)

Conmtinent«sl Sank Corp. v.
The state of Florida Q
Supreme Court ¢ B7- 1955

Cummins Sngine Co. Ine. Y.

Continental Motors Corp. & the Cancelled ¢
tradename “TU }) DIESSL"

359 Fr. °d 892,994, 53 Le 1967, tte q i +)

sidelity cond and Mortauwre Co. vy. 7
Fidelity cond and Mortgage Co. of Teras
37 #272 OF (Sth Cir. 1950)

first Southern Seleral Saviage and Lean Asso Vag
First Southern Jiwings ait Loan Aan.
214 ¥.2d 71,74 “th cir. 1A)

-iurphy Door Bed Co. v 7
urphy d Ce.
(2nd Cir 198°)

Steak « srew Inc. v. 7
Seef « jres
379 FP. Supp. 1939 (1974)

wzun dank vy.
Jun Yeders? 7
ah F.2d. 331 (5th Cir. 1981)

Surf Club v.
Tatona Surf Shee
1§1 Pla. 406 10 So. 2d 554-557 , 19.47)

iy

ees Scismeamaiibcesioneli

IM THE SUPREME COURT
or, THB
UNITSD STATES uF AMERICA
LUIS A. SURO A/K/A
*7

CITICURP MORTGAGS CO. INC. PETITION sR
versus

Citicorp hes

The petition(s) for rehearing filled by

Li Typ TUM

Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF FLURIDA

44is SORO, an individual
Jefendant,

CASE NU. 85-2960
CIV-SpeuLMAN
SUMAARY FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUS=S comes before the Court upon
Plaintiff Citicorp's (CITIC.HP) Motion for
Cunmary Judgment. This action was first brought

agains! ClLliCln? MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC. (CITICORP
MORTGACE). CITICORP MORTGAG= answered and sub-

sequently filed two counterclaims on ‘Xctober 4,
ocr Y

) Mareh ©, 1987, Plaintiff filed its
Amended Complaint aiding Defendant, LUIS SURO
‘SoR0") as a party defendant. 30th defendants

filed answers and affirmative defenses to that

Amended Complaint. Although Soro was represented

by counsel at that time, SOR) contiually attempted

file Motions in his own behalf and on behalf

USE OF NAME CITICORP

—

when this Court granted Summary Judgment
against CITICORP MOXTGAGS ON September 8, 1987,
CTTICORP MORTGAGE was directed to cease all .
infringing activities, to change the corporate
name and to deliver all infringing material for
destruction. This Court informed SOXO at the
Aligust 24, 1988, hearing that when the mandate
from the 11th Circuit was received, this Court .
would issue an Order directing SOHO, as the
representative of CITICORP MORTGAGE, to
initiate a change with regard to that name in
accordance with this Court's summary final
judgment. The Court went on to explicity
warn SORO that in the event that CITICOHxr
MORTGAGS failed to abide by that Order, this
Court would hold SOKO responsible and would
initiate contempt proceeding by way of civil
contempt against the officer to whom that Order
was and is directed, to wit, SORO. SOO was
told at that time that he would have ten (10)

days from the date of tnis Court's Order to

=

aes — - 2 - : _ - Se —— =
- SS See aa a a = ee a ae ee _——_ = ~ :

to Une Summary Judgment dated
iyo, ana ecnange the name of the
corporatition on the records of the Secretary
of Siate's uffice for the State of Florida.

.s received from the Sleventh

_boult on September 8, 1988. Therefore, SORO
ut vs from tne date of tnis JUrder to
.
: comply with this Court's instructions contained

in the September 8, 1988, Grder and given to

coust on August 24, 1988. Failure

. -) 49 SO will gesult in SORO being held in civil
cont Es
: Accordingly, it is hereby

JR)SR22D AND ADJUDGSD that the Plaintiff's
sues oul guiiacy Judgment is GRANTED. It is
Turtnaer UKDARSD that the Counterclaim filed by
is DISMIsssD as untimely, and for lack of

nding. Defendant SOROD, as sole stockholder

and officer of CITICORP MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.

a5 Avreoy directed to initiate a name change

.

ror VITICORP MORTGAGS and to comply with the

QO

itained in tnis Court's

‘zment dated September 8, 1987,

‘en (10) days of the date of this Order.
wiv Jwonisud in chambers at iMiami,

rida this 6 day of uct, 1988.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

el-of record

?
é
)
6
|
{9
\e

IN Tiis UNITED SYAT 2S COURL ot

APPIAGS POR THE SLEVENTH CIecUlt

—_

lo. 98-5178

Non-aArgument Calender

— a ee ee ee rm men ee ee ou . - a

Oo Docket NO. 95-2960-CIV- sor

Citicorp, Plaintiff-Comnter
Claim Jefend2ant-Adpelles,
versus
CITICIJRP MORTGAGE COMPANY INC.
Defendant,
Zuis A. Soro Defendant /Counter
Claim-Plaintiff-aoellent

.opeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Flori

Februar 23, 1990
Before kravitch, Hatchett, and ANDARSON, Circuit Judges.
Per CURIUMS

APWIRMSD. See Circuit Rule 36-1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2585%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.