Suja Life, LLC v. Pines International, Inc., No. 3:2016cv00985 - Document 31 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 26 Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Consider Its Late Opposition re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Pines International, Inc. The motion for preliminary injunction hearing set for Novemb er 4, 2016 shall be rescheduled to October 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. Any opposition shall be filed on or before September 16, 2016. Any reply shall be filed on or before September 30, 2016. The Court DIRECTS Pines to withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction and refile it in accordance with the 25 page limit or seek leave of court to file a brief exceeding the 25 page limit within three days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/4/16. (dlg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Suja Life, LLC v. Pines International, Inc. Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SUJA LIFE, LLC, 11 CASE NO. 16CV985-GPC(WVG) Plaintiff, v. 12 13 14 PINES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. 15 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONSIDER ITS LATE OPPOSITION AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 26.] 16 On July 20, 2016, Defendant Pines International, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Pines”) 17 1 18 filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Plaintiff Suja 19 Life, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “Suja”) ex parte application to continue the hearing date on 20 Defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction and for expedited discovery. (Dkt. No. 21 26.) On July 21, 2016, Suja filed a notice of intent to oppose the ex parte motion and 22 filed an opposition on July 22, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 29.) Without seeking leave to file 23 a reply, Pines filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 30.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court 24 GRANTS Pines’ ex parte motion for leave to file a late opposition and GRANTS in 25 part Pines’ ex parte motion to reconsider the Court’s order filed on July 19, 2016. 26 / / / / 27 28 1 It appears that Pines seeks a motion for leave to consider its late opposition and a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order. -1- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)] Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Discussion On July 19, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed ex parte motion for 3 order continuing hearing on motion for preliminary injunction and for early discovery. 4 (Dkt. No. 23.) The Court continued the hearing date from September 30, 2016 to 5 November 4, 2016 and granted Suja’s request to conduct early expedited discovery to 6 oppose the motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) 7 8 Background On April 22, 2016, Suja filed a declaratory relief action against Pines that it does 9 not infringe upon any of Pines’ purported trademark rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) In June 10 2016, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and requested an extension 11 of time for Pines to prepare an answer which was granted. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) Then 12 on June 24, 2016, Pines filed an answer and counterclaim against Suja. (Dkt. No. 13.) 13 On June 20, 2016, Pines filed an amended answer and counterclaim for trademark 14 infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, state statutory unfair 15 competition, state common law unfair competition, and common law trademark 16 infringement. (Dkt. No. 25.) 17 On June 9, 2016, Pines filed a motion for preliminary injunction with a hearing 18 date on September 30, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15.) On July 15, 2016, Suja filed an ex parte 19 motion to continue the hearing on preliminary injunction and sought expedited early 20 discovery. (Dkt. No. 21.) Pines did not file an opposition to the ex parte motion or file 21 a notice of its intent to oppose the ex parte motion pursuant to the undersigned 22 Chambers’ Civil Rules.2 Therefore, without a response by Pines, on July 19, 2016, the 23 Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for order continuing hearing date for 24 preliminary injunction and for early discovery from September 30, 2016 to November 25 26 2 The undersigned Chambers’ Rules concerning ex parte motions provide, “The 27 Court may rule upon ex parte motions without requiring a response from the opposing party. If a party intends to oppose the ex parte motion, the party must immediately file 28 a notice stating that the party intends to oppose the ex parte motion and providing the date upon which the opposition will be filed.” -2- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)] 1 4, 2016.3 Pines filed the instant ex parte motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 2 order. 3 Discussion 4 A. Motion for Leave to Consider Late Opposition 5 While Pines moves for reconsideration for the Court to consider its late 6 opposition, in fact, it moves for leave of Court to consider its late opposition. 7 A motion for reconsideration may be brought under Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b) which provides that any order which does not terminate the 9 case is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 54(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 11 newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 12 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 13 Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also 14 Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011). 15 Rule 6(b)(1)(B) also provides that the “court may, for good cause, extend the 16 time: . . . (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act 17 because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 18 Here, Pines’ counsel admits that he should have immediately filed a notice and 19 mistakenly failed to file a timely notice of intent to oppose Suja’s ex parte motion due 20 to a bicycling accident during the week of July 11, 2016. (Dkt. No. 26-1, McArthur 21 Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.) He argues it was a clerical error which was exacerbated by the fact that 22 he was hospitalized during the week of July 11, 2016. In response, Suja argues that 23 Pines has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration. 24 While Pines has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration for purposes of 25 seeking leave of court to consider its late opposition, it has satisfied the Rule 6(b) 26 standard for excusable neglect. In Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick 27 Association Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993), the United States Supreme 28 3 In its motion, Plaintiff sought a hearing date on November 28, 2016. -3- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)] 1 Court specifically set forth the standard for demonstrating excusable neglect, which 2 includes the following four-part test: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving 3 party; (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the 4 reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 5 movant; and (4) whether the moving party's conduct was in good faith. Id. at 395. 6 Here, there was no delay in raising the ex parte motion to reconsider, Pines did 7 not act in bad faith in failing to file an opposition and no prejudice to Suja if the Court 8 considers Pines’ opposition. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Pines’ ex parte motion for 9 leave to consider its late opposition. The Court next considers Pines’ ex parte motion 10 for reconsideration of the Court’s order. 11 In its ex parte motion, Suja argued that there is no urgency in Pines’ motion for 12 preliminary injunction because it delayed bringing its motion for preliminary injunction 13 for more than one year. Suja argues that in order to show that Pines will not likely 14 prevail on the merits of its claims and is not suffering any irreparable harm, Suja must 15 interview witnesses, take depositions, serve requests to inspect documents and tangible 16 things, review and analyze documents provided by Pines, identify and consult with 17 expert witnesses, and gather and review any relevant documents in Suja’s possession. 18 (Dkt. No. 21-2, Orr Decl. ¶ 5.) Suja not only seeks to oppose by pointing out the lack 19 of evidence to support Pines’ requested relief but also seeks to affirmatively rebut 20 Pines’ claims. In opposition, Pines argues that Suja already had months to prepare and 21 gather evidence for its opposition. Moreover, since Suja brought the declaratory 22 judgment action, it already had time more than the average defendant to prepare its 23 opposition. Moreover, Pines argues that Suja has not provided reasons why its needs 24 discovery or what kind of information is needed. In fact, Pines argue that this is a run25 of-the-mill trademark infringement case where the products and trademarks at issue are 26 in the public domain. It argues that it is facing “real, dire, imminent, and irreparable 27 harm that must be remedied as soon as possible or it will lose all control of its 28 registered trademark.” (Dkt. No. 26 at 8.) Its Mighty Greens sales are plummeting and -4- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)] 1 it is unable to enter grocery store chains because Suja is infringing the Mighty Greens 2 trademark. (Id.) 3 The “good cause” standard applies to determine whether expedited discovery 4 should be granted. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. v. uCool, Inc., No. 15cv1267-SC, 5 2015 WL 3523405, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2015). “The good cause standard may be 6 satisfied where a party seeks a preliminary injunction.” American Legal Net, Inc. v. 7 Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citation omitted). However, 8 expedited discovery is not automatic. Id. Courts may consider the following factors 9 to determine reasonableness of expedited discovery and include “(1) whether a 10 preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery request; (3) the 11 purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to 12 comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process 13 the request was made.” Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. 14 Cal. 2009). 15 Here, a preliminary injunction motion is pending. Suja seeks discovery to 16 demonstrate that Pines will not likely to prevail on the merits of its claims and is not 17 suffering any irreparable harm in order to oppose the motion for preliminary injunction. 18 Pines does not object to discovery starting early but objects to extensive discovery and 19 a three month delay because it claims it will be irreparably harmed from Suja’s 20 continued alleged infringement of Pines’ trademark. Lastly, Suja’s request was made 21 less than a week after the motion for preliminary injunction was filed by Pines. After 22 considering Pines’ opposition and the relevant factors, the Court concludes that while 23 Suja has not particularized what specific discovery it seeks, Suja has shown sufficient 24 good cause for expedited discovery to oppose Defendant’s motion for preliminary 25 injunction. In balancing the general discovery sought by Suja, and the prejudice 26 alleged by Pines, the Court reconsiders its order and moves the hearing date to October 27 14, 2016. 28 -5- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)] 1 2 Conclusion Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for leave to 3 consider its late opposition and GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 4 of the Court’s order granting in part Suja’s ex parte motion to continue preliminary 5 injunction hearing date and granting expedited discovery. 6 The motion for preliminary injunction hearing set for November 4, 2016 shall 7 be rescheduled to October 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. Any opposition 8 shall be filed on or before September 16, 2016. Any reply shall be filed on or before 9 September 30, 2016. 10 In addition, the Court notes that the motion for preliminary injunction exceeds 11 the 25 page limit required under the S.D. Civil Local Rules 7.1(h) and Pines did not 12 seek leave of Court to exceed the page limit.4 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Pines 13 to withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction and refile it in accordance with the 14 25 page limit or seek leave of court to file a brief exceeding the 25 page limit within 15 three days of the filing of this Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: August 4, 2016 19 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 “Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed a total of twenty-five (25) pages in length, per 28 party, for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the motion.” Local Civ. R. 7.1(h). -6- [16CV985-GPC(WVG)]
]]>
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.
