Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Enhanced Athlete, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/13/17, DENYING plaintiff's 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION, LLC,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No.
2:17-cv-2069-JAM-CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ENHANCED ATHLETE, INC., a
Wyoming Corporation; GILMORE
ENGINEERING, INC., an
unincorporated association;
SCOTT E. CAVELL, an
individual; CHARLES ANTHONY
HUGHES, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
Plaintiff Nutrition Distribution, LLC, doing business as
21
Athletic Xtreme (“Plaintiff”) is suing Enhanced Athlete, Inc.,
22
Gilmore Engineering, Inc., Scott E. Cavell, and Charles Anthony
23
Hughes (collectively “Defendants”) for false advertising and
24
violation of the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
25
Organization Act (“RICO”).
Plaintiff now seeks a preliminary
26
injunction enjoining Defendants from producing, licensing,
27
marketing, and selling DNP products and from establishing any
28
1
1
other entity for the purpose of doing so.
2
forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is
3
DENIED.
For the reasons set
4
5
I.
6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has accused Defendants of false and misleading
7
advertising with respect to products containing 2,4-Dinitrophenol
8
(“DNP”), which Defendants market and sell to body builders, gym
9
users, and the like.
Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3.
Plaintiff contends that
10
this product is dangerous for human consumption but Defendants
11
promote it as an ingestible fitness supplement that increases fat
12
loss.
13
own supplement—Slim FX—which competes for similar customers.
14
at ¶¶ 18–21.
15
under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act and for engaging in a long-
16
term scheme to defraud customers in violation of RICO.
17
¶¶ 38–54.
18
See id. at ¶ 28.
Plaintiff manufactures and markets its
Id.
Plaintiff now sues Defendants for false advertising
Id. at
Shortly after filing this suit, Plaintiff filed an ex parte
19
application for a temporary restraining order.
20
Court denied the request, finding Plaintiff failed to file the
21
requisite affidavits in support of its motion, and set a briefing
22
schedule for the preliminary injunction request.
23
Hughes and Cavell attest that they have not yet been served with
24
the summons and complaint in this lawsuit.
25
Hughes Decl. ¶ 2.
26
behalf of Enhanced Athlete and Cavell, appearing solely for the
27
purposes of opposing the pending motion.
ECF No. 4.
The
ECF No. 8.
Cavell Decl. ¶¶ 9–10;
Rutan & Tucker, LLP, filed an opposition on
28
2
Opp’n at 5.
1
2
II.
OPINION
3
A.
4
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
Legal Standard
5
the he is likely to succeed on the merits,that he is likely to
6
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
7
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
8
injunction is in the public interest.”
9
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Alliance for the Wild
10
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)).
11
A plaintiff must establish that the irreparable harm is likely,
12
not just possible.
Id.
13
B.
14
The Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary
Analysis
15
injunction because it has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
16
Because this conclusion is dispositive, the Court does not need
17
to address the remaining three factors set out in Winter. See
18
Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Lecheek Nutrition, Inc., No. CV 15-
19
1322-MWF (MRWx), 2015 WL 12659907 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2015)
20
(“Indeed, suffering irreparable harm prior to a determination of
21
the merits is perhaps the single most important prerequisite for
22
the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”) (citation and
23
quotation marks omitted).
24
Plaintiff argues the irreparable harm prong of the Winter
25
test is met because of the serious risk of harm DNP poses to the
26
life of those who ingest it.
27
provides no authority under which the Court may consider
28
irreparable harm to third parties in lieu of or in addition to
Mot. at 17–18.
3
However, Plaintiff
1
irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
2
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish . . .
3
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm[.]”) (emphasis
4
added); Wooten v. BNSF Railway Co., No. CV 16-139-M-DLC-JCL, 2017
5
WL 1089546, at *1 (D. Mont. Mar. 21, 2017) (“The Court agrees
6
with Judge Lynch that harms alleged against third parties are not
7
relevant to the irreparable harm prong of the Winter analysis.”).
8
Plaintiff is a competitor, not a consumer.
9
appropriate to consider this risk in weighing public interest
See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (“A
While it may be
10
concerns, the Court may not consider it in the irreparable harm
11
analysis.
12
Plaintiff also argues that it “has lost sales after the
13
introduction of DNP into the marketplace.”
14
Plaintiff cites a paragraph in Michael Keplinger’s declaration in
15
support: “Slim FX sales decreased significantly since the fall of
16
2016 after the reintroduction of DNP into the marketplace by
17
Defendants.
18
of 2016, our sales of DNP have decreased 38%.”
19
¶ 5.
20
evidence is irrelevant because “in Lanham Act cases . . .
21
injunctive relief may be granted upon proof that a false
22
statement of fact in a commercial advertisement is material and
23
has a tendency to deceive the relevant purchasing public[,]”
24
which is sufficient to establish irreparable injury.
25
(citing National Products, Inc. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC, 734 F.
26
Supp. 2d 1160, 1171 (W.D. Wash. 2010)).
27
28
Mot. at 18.
Since Defendants began selling DNP during the Fall
Keplinger Decl.
Plaintiff also contends that any deficiency in this
Rep. at 3–4
The Court will not presume irreparable harm in evaluating
the propriety of granting a preliminary injunction in a false
4
1
advertising case.
2
Cutlery Co., 823 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1157–58 (D. Ore. 2011) (“Given
3
the direction that the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have taken
4
in the context of copyright and patent cases, I decline to find
5
that a presumption of irreparable harm exists in a false
6
advertising claim.”); Nutrition Distribution LLC, 2015 WL
7
12659907, at *7 (“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any injury
8
it might suffer would be irreparable absent an injunction.”).
9
Plaintiff’s cited cases applying such presumption either predate
See Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc. v. Coast
10
decisions strictly requiring a showing that irreparable harm is
11
likely or rely on that earlier authority.
12
734 F. Supp. 2d at 1171 (relying on Southland Sod Farms v. Stover
13
Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997)); cf. Leatherman Tool
14
Grp., 823 F. Supp. 2d at 1156–57 (“Leatherman argues that it is
15
entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm if a tendency to
16
deceive has been established. . . .
17
of the use of ‘categorical’ rules with respect to irreparable
18
harm. . . . It is now clear that eBay signifies a return to
19
traditional equitable principles, under which presumptions of
20
harm are not allowed.”) (citing eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
21
547 U.S. 388 (2006)).
22
involved a permanent injunction or damages following
23
adjudication, not a determination of irreparable harm during the
24
pendency of a case.
25
See National Products,
The eBay Court disapproved
Further, the cases Plaintiff relies upon
Without a presumption, Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient
26
to establish irreparable harm.
27
not establish a causal connection—or even more than a merely
28
speculative connection—between Defendants’ product and marketing
The proffered declaration does
5
1
and Plaintiff’s decrease in sales.
2
provides evidence supporting its loss in sales, which may be
3
remedied by monetary damages.
4
WL 12659907 at *7 (“An irreparable harm is one that cannot be
5
redressed by a legal or equitable remedy following trial.”).
6
Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated it is likely to suffer
7
irreparable harm its motion for a preliminary injunction must be
8
denied.
9
10
11
12
13
III.
Furthermore, Plaintiff only
See Nutrition Distribution, 2015
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 13, 2017
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?