Homeland Housewares LLC et al v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, No. 2:2014cv03954 - Document 229 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF SARAH BUTLER 185 186 189 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons state above the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgement, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication and the Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Sarah Butler are all DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Homeland Housewares LLC et al v. SharkNinja Operating LLC Doc. 229 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 HOMELAND HOUSEWARES, LLC, a California LLC; NUTRIBULLET, LLC,L a California LLC, 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 14-03954 DDP (MANx) ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF SARAH BUTLER [Dkt. Nos. 185, 186, 189] Presently before the court are: (1) Plaintiffs Homeland 19 Housewares, LLC, and Nutribullet, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs” or 20 “Homeland”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, 21 Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ False Advertising Claim; (2) 22 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Sarah Butler; 23 and (3) Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC (“SharkNinja”)’s Motion 24 for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary 25 Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 185, 189, 186). After considering the parties’ 26 submissions and hearing oral argument, the court enters the 27 following Order. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 I. BACKGROUND The court has set forth the relevant background in several 3 previous Orders. (See Dkts. 33, 39, 46, 69.) In brief, Homeland and 4 SharkNinja are competitors in the home blender market. (Decl. 5 Kaitlyn Hebert in support of Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def. Mot.”), 6 ¶3.) Primarily at issue in this case is a comparison chart printed 7 on the packaging for SharkNinja’s NutriNinja Pro (“BL450”) product. 8 (Wilton Decl., Exs. 5 & 6.) The chart in question, labeled “NUTRI 9 NINJA vs. NUTRIBULLET,” compares the products along various 10 criteria including wattage, speed, portability, and other features. 11 (Id.) Notably, the chart does not specify whether it is comparing 12 the BL450 to a particular Nutribullet model or all Nutribullet 13 products. 14 According to Homeland, the chart constitutes false advertising 15 that is entirely inaccurate as to the higher end NutriBullet Pro 16 (“NB 900”) and largely inaccurate as to the NutriBullet Classic 17 (“NB 600”). This court previously granted a preliminary injunction 18 requiring SharkNinja to remove the allegedly infringing statements 19 from the BL450 box. (Dkt. 33 at 17-18.) Homeland now brings a 20 motion for summary judgment, and in the alternative, for summary 21 adjudication, of its false advertising claims against SharkNinja. 22 Homeland also moves to exclude the testimony of SharkNinja’s expert 23 Sarah Butler who has conducted a survey on certain aspects of how 24 consumers interpret the BL450’s packaging. SharkNinja has moved for 25 summary judgment, and in the alternative, for summary adjudication, 26 on all claims. 27 28 2 1 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, 3 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 4 together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 5 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 6 to judgment as a matter of law.” 7 seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the 8 court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions 9 of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party 10 absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 11 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 12 the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. 13 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). 14 moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is 15 entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is 16 an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” 17 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 18 See Celotex Corp. v. All reasonable inferences from See If the Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to 19 the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth 20 specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 21 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 22 party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 23 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on 24 which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 25 477 U.S. at 322. 26 that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 27 party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome 28 of the suit under the governing law.” Summary judgment is warranted if a Celotex, A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such 3 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 1 There is no genuine issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a 2 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 3 nonmoving party.” 4 Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 5 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a 6 genuine issue of triable fact.” 7 1278 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 support clearly. 9 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, Counsel has an obligation to lay out their Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d The court “need not examine the entire 10 file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 11 evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate 12 references so that it could conveniently be found.” 13 III. DISCUSSION Id. 14 A. 15 Plaintiff moves to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Daubert Motion and Summary Judgment Claims 16 Sarah Butler under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. 17 Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Having reviewed the 18 expert report and considered the parties’ arguments, the court 19 DENIES the motion. Furthermore, both parties seek summary judgment, 20 or in the alternative, summary adjudication on the false 21 advertising claim arising under Lanham Act section 43. Defendant 22 also seeks summary judgment on Homeland’s state law claims for 23 unfair competition, false advertising, and trade libel. Having 24 considered the admissible record evidence, the court finds there 25 are triable issues of fact and DENIES summary judgment on all 26 claims. 27 28 4 1 B. Plaintiff Homeland Houseware’s Standing 2 Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lexmark Intern. v. 3 Static Control Components, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2013), a party seeking 4 to establish standing to recover under Section 43(a) of the Lanham 5 Act must meet the minimum requirements of Article III 6 standing–injury, causation, and redressability–and must also “plead 7 (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales 8 or business reputation proximately caused by the defendants 9 misrepresentations.” Id. at 1395. The requirement that a plaintiff 10 allege “injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales” 11 exists to ensure that their claims come within the zone of 12 interests protected by the statute. Id. at 1390. While a plaintiff 13 may initially rely on allegations to meet the standing, they 14 “cannot obtain relief without evidence of injury.” Id. at 1395. 15 SharkNinja contends that Homeland Housewares LLC lacks 16 standing and must be dismissed from the action. (Def. Mot. 24.) 17 Specifically, SharkNinja argues that Homeland Housewares lacks a 18 personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and cannot show sales 19 or reputational injury. (Id.) In support, SharkNinja notes that 20 Homeland Housewares admits it has never manufactured, marketed, or 21 sold any of the products at issue in this case. (Price Decl., Ex. 22 27 (Sapire Depo.), 14:3-15:2, 20:2-16, 22:20-22.) While Homeland 23 Housewares did own intellectual property in the Nutribullet 24 trademark, SharkNinja also asserts that the mark was assigned to 25 non-party CapBran Holdings, LLC in September 2015. (Def. Mot. 24.) 26 Plaintiffs respond that Homeland Housewares has adequately 27 alleged reputational injury to meet the Lexmark requirements. In 28 Plaintiffs’ view, SharkNinja’s allegedly false advertising damages 5 1 the reputation of Homeland products in the mind of consumers and 2 retail buyers. (Pl. Opp’n 22-23.) Even if Homeland did not 3 manufacture the disparaged products, it still suffers reputational 4 injury because of its association with the product. In support, 5 Plaintiffs rely on Lexmark’s teaching that “when a defendant harms 6 a plaintiff’s reputation by casting aspersions on its business, the 7 plaintiff’s injury flows directly from the audience’s belief in the 8 disparaging statements.” Lexmark, 134 S. Ct. 1393. While Plaintiffs 9 concede that Homeland Housewares assigned its trademark rights in 10 2015 to a non-party, it contends that assignment is irrelevant for 11 purposes of standing, which “‘is determined by the facts that exist 12 at the time the complaint is filed.’” (Pl. Opp’n 24 (quoting Clark 13 v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2001)).) 14 Plaintiffs also state that Homeland Housewares retained the right 15 to prosecute claims on the non-party’s behalf. (Pl. Opp’n 24.) 16 Defendants contest this assertion because they read the original 17 assignment as also transferring the right to sue. (Def. Reply 22 18 (citing Wilton Decl., Ex. 20).) 19 At this juncture, the court concludes that Homeland has 20 adequately alleged facts regarding injury to its reputation to meet 21 Lexmark’s standing inquiry. Contrary to SharkNinja’s argument, 22 Homeland Housewares does not assert injury solely on the grounds 23 that they are a “sister corporation” of Nutribullet. Rather, the 24 claim is grounded in allegations that it was the owner of the 25 relevant trademark at the time the suit was initiated and that it 26 was the company that invested money into building the BULLET 27 blenders brand. (See First Amended Complaint ¶ 4.) If at trial, 28 SharkNinja is able to substantiate its argument that Homeland 6 1 Housewares suffered no injury, it might then preclude Homeland 2 Housewares from recovering, but dismissing Homeland Housewares at 3 this stage is unwarranted. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons state above the Cross-Motions for Summary 6 Judgement, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication and the 7 Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Sarah Butler are all 8 DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: August 2, 2016 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
