Oakley Inc v. Nike Inc et al
Filing
189
JUDGMENT Granting Defendant Nike, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings by Judge James V. Selna, in favor of Nike Inc against Oakley Inc. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (twdb)
1
JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SOUTHERN DIVISION
11
OAKLEY, INC.,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
CASE NO. SACV12-02138 JVS (ANx)
Plaintiff,
v.
NIKE, INC.; and RORY McILROY,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT GRANTING
DEFENDANT NIKE, INC.’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
OAKLEY, INC. PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 56 AND 12(C)
Hearing:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:
December 16, 2013
1:30 p.m.
Dept. 10-C
Hon. James V. Selna
After considering the papers submitted by Defendant Nike, Inc. (“Nike”):
Defendant Nike’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Judgment on the
Pleadings was GRANTED. (Doc. 180) There were no triable issues of material fact as
to the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.’s (“Oakley”) First Amended
Complaint against Nike. Oakley failed to demonstrate any facts supporting its cause of
action for intentional interference with contractual relations.
Oakley could not
maintain its claim for relief for unfair competition under California Business and
1
Professions Code Section 17200. Oakley’s claim for declaratory relief failed as a
2
matter of law because the claim attempts to remedy past wrongdoing and is duplicative
3
of Oakley’s other two claims.
4
5
6
Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant Nike and against
Plaintiff Oakley on all causes of action in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: December 30, 2013
10
Honorable James V. Selna
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Respectfully submitted by:
JEFFREY T. THOMAS
JEFFREY H. REEVES
JOSEPH A. GORMAN
SEAN S. TWOMEY
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/ Jeffrey T. Thomas
Jeffrey T. Thomas
Attorneys for Defendant NIKE, INC.
19
20
JUDGMENT RE MSJ.DOCX
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?