Andersen Tax LLC v. Laffont-Reveilhac et al
Filing
41
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 27 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/16/2017. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ANDERSEN TAX LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11
Case No. 17-cv-01311-EMC
STEPHANE LAFFONT-REVEILHAC, et
al.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
ANSWER
Docket No. 27
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Defendants.
13
On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Defendants Stephane Laffont-
14
15
Réveilhac (“Laffont-Réveilhac”), Veronique Martinez (“Martinez”), Arthur Andersen & Co., SAS
16
(“AA&C”), and MoHala Enterprises, LLC (“MoHala”), alleging trademark counterfeiting under
17
15 U.S.C. § 1114, trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition arising under the
18
California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and other related claims. See Docket
19
No. 1. On April 13, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant MoHala entered into a Confidential Settlement
20
Agreement through which MoHala agreed to the entry of a Consent Judgment and Permanent
21
Injunction against it. Docket No. 22. The Court entered the Consent Judgment against MoHala
22
on April 17, 2017. Docket No. 23. On April 18, 2017, Defendants filed an Answer. Docket No.
23
24.
24
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ Answer. Docket No.
25
27. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Defendants Martinez and AA&C but
26
denies it with respect to Defendant Laffont-Réveilhac. Laffont-Réveilhac cannot sign on behalf of
27
AA&C because only counsel can sign a pleading for corporate entities like AA&C. See 28 U.S.C.
28
§ 1654; Civil Local Rule 3-9(b); Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
1
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Neither can Laffont-Réveilhac sign on behalf of Martinez
2
because the privilege to appear in propria person is personal to himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654;
3
Civil Local Rule 3-9(a); McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). As stated
4
at the hearing, AA&C can only appear through an attorney. Ms. Martinez may appear but absent
5
representation by counsel, she must sign any pleading herself.
6
Plaintiff also requests that the Court strike assertions in the Answer regarding purported
Docket No. 27 at 5-8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Answer fails to demonstrate that
9
Defendants’ foreign trademark registrations should break “[t]he concept of territoriality . . . basic
10
to trademark law.” Person’s Co., Ltd. v. Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see
11
La Societe Anonyme des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou, 495 F.2d 1265, 1271 n.4 (2d Cir.
12
For the Northern District of California
foreign trademark rights and proceedings and references to the Paris Convention under Rule 12(f).
8
United States District Court
7
1974) (citation omitted) (“It is well settled that foreign use is ineffectual to create trademark rights
13
in the United States.”); Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1956)
14
(“[F]oreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize.”).
15
Having a foreign trademark registration is not a direct legal defense to an infringement claim in
16
the United States.
17
However, at this stage of the litigation, the Court cannot discern whether these assertions
18
will turn out to be entirely irrelevant. Thus, the Court, at this time, does not take the extraordinary
19
measure of striking these assertions.
20
Plaintiff also argues that to the extent that paragraph 11 of the Answer suggests an
21
affirmative defense such as unclean hands or other equitable defense, they are inadequately plead
22
and should be stricken under Rule 12(f). Docket No. 27 at 8-11. An affirmative defense is
23
insufficiently pled if it does not provide a fair notice of the nature of the defense. Wyshak v. City
24
Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court’s decision in Twombly
25
requires that a party allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
26
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In 2009, the Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v.
27
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009), clarified that Twombly was based on the interpretation and
28
application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, thereby extending Twombly’s pleading standard
2
1
to all civil cases. The Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on whether Twombly and Iqbal should apply to
2
the pleading of affirmative defenses. However, “the vast majority of courts presented with the
3
issue have extended Twombly’s heightened pleading standard to affirmative defenses.” Barnes v.
4
AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2010);
5
see also CTF Dev., Inc. v. Penta Hospitality, LLC, 2009 WL 3517617, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26,
6
2009) (“Under the Iqbal standard, the burden is on the defendant to proffer sufficient facts and law
7
to support an affirmative defense”).
Even under the heightened standard, however, the Court finds that the Answer gave
8
9
Plaintiff sufficient notice of the basis of Defendants’ defense: that Plaintiff created brands to
extent that the Answer asserts an affirmative defense such as unclean hands or other equitable
12
For the Northern District of California
impersonate brands owned by Defendants and caused deception in the marketplace. Thus, to the
11
United States District Court
10
defense, the Court does not strike it.
Lastly, the Court finds that Laffont-Réveilhac waived any objections to personal
13
14
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) by filing and signing an answer that does
15
not contest personal jurisdiction. See Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A
16
general appearance or responsive pleading by a defendant that fails to dispute personal jurisdiction
17
will waive any defect in service or personal jurisdiction.”). The Court does not find that Martinez
18
or AA&C waived objections to personal jurisdiction because they failed to make a voluntary
19
general appearance through a valid Answer.
Defendants are given until July 31, 2017 to find counsel and/or to file an amended Answer.
20
21
Although the Court has not stricken Defendant Laffont-Réveilhac’s Answer, he is advised to file
22
an amended Answer that complies more fully with Rule 8. If any party is not represented by
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
counsel, he or she should consult with the Court’s handbook, “Representing Yourself in Federal
2
Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,” which is available to download electronically at the
3
Court’s website, http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.
4
This order disposes of Docket No. 27.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
Dated: June 16, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?