Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. HVFG, L.L.C. et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Hon. William Alsup denying 62 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. C 12-05809 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
HVFG LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

A recent order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Of

18

particular relevance here, the order concluded that plaintiff Regal Vegan had both Article III

19

standing and standing under the Lanham Act (Dkt. No. 50 at 7, 11). Defendants now move for

20

leave to file a motion for reconsideration. They argue that the rulings on standing were based on

21

the allegedly faulty premises that “plaintiffs assert that defendants’ advertisements misrepresent

22

the nature of defendants’ pâté and that Regal Vegan and Hudson Valley purportedly compete in

23

a market for ‘humanely produced pâtés’ or ‘spreadable pâtés’” (Dkt. No. 62 at 2 (emphasis

24

removed)).

25

Defendants’ request for leave is DENIED. Defendants — who admittedly sell foie gras —

26

complain that they do not sell pâté, that the complaint contains no allegation that they sell pâté,

27

and that there is no evidence in the record that they sell pâté. This objection proceeds from

28

semantic hair-splitting. Foie gras is commonly defined as “fat liver esp. of a goose usu. in the
form of a pâté, puree, or terrine.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 881 (1961).

1

For now, that defendants’ product may not technically be a “pâté” in its natural state is not

2

dispositive. The prior order determined that Regal Vegan has alleged sufficient facts — at this

3

preliminary stage — that the parties produce competing products and compete for the same pool

4

of potential customers (Dkt. No. 62 at 6). To the extent that the gravamen of defendants’ motion

5

disputes whether they actually compete, defendants must now pursue such contentions at

6

summary judgment, or at trial.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: May 14, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2