ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Security One International, Inc. et al
Filing
102
ORDER re: NOTICE OF PARTIAL PRELIMINARY RULING AND REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/19/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff(s),
7
v.
8
9
Case No.: 11-CV-05149 YGR
NOTICE OF PARTIAL PRELIMINARY RULING
AND REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING
SECURITY ONE INT’L, INC. et al.,
Defendant(s).
10
11
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY RULING AND REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR THE HEARING
13
SCHEDULED ON JULY 24, 2012 AT 2:00 P.M.
14
15
PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO COUNT I OF THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
16
The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and arguments, and is inclined to DENY that part of
17
the Motion to Dismiss that seeks dismissal of Count I of the Second Amended Complaint on the basis
18
that it is a successive Rule 12 motion. Having failed to raise his objection to Count I in his first
19
motion to dismiss, Claudio Hand is now precluded under Rule 12(g) from raising the objection in a
20
second motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court will not entertain argument addressing Count I of the
21
Second Amended Complaint.
I.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will DENY IN PART that part of the Motion to Dismiss that
22
23
seeks to dismiss Count I of the Second Amended Complaint on the basis that the motion is a
24
successive Rule 12 motion.
25
II.
REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
26
The parties shall file a statement of supplemental authority regarding the following:
27
1)
28
Under the Lanham Act “a corporate officer or director is, in general, personally liable
for all torts which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that he acted as
1
an agent of the corporation and not on his own behalf.” Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title
2
Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 1999).
a)
3
With pinpoint citations, and without argument, what legal authority supports
4
ADT’s position that under the Lanham Act a corporate officer or director is personally liable
5
for torts which he does not authorize, does not direct, and does not participate in, but to which
6
he is willfully blind?
b)
7
With pinpoint citations, and without argument, what legal authority supports
8
Defendant’s position that under the Lanham Act a corporate officer or director is not
9
personally liable for torts which he does not authorize, does not direct, and does not participate
10
in, but to which he is willfully blind?
c)
11
With pinpoint citations, and without argument, what legal authority supports
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
Defendant’s position that under the Lanham Act, alleging that the sole officer, director, and
13
shareholder of a corporation “directs, authorizes, approves, participates in, [and] supervises”
14
fraudulent acts, does not plead the circumstances of the fraud with particularity?
15
2)
Count II alleges Vicarious Unfair Competition and False Advertising under the
16
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
17
a)
With pinpoint citations to legal authority, and without argument, what are the
18
elements for a cause of action for Vicarious Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, 15
19
U.S.C. § 1125?
b)
20
With pinpoint citations to legal authority, and without argument, what are the
21
elements for a cause of action for Vicarious False Advertising under the Lanham Act, 15
22
U.S.C. § 1125?
23
3)
24
25
Count III alleges Contributory Unfair Competition and False Advertising under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The parties dispute whether such a cause of action exists.
a)
With pinpoint citations, and without argument, what legal authority supports
26
Defendant’s position that no cause of action exists for Contributory Unfair Competition or
27
Contributory False Advertising under the Lanham Act?
28
2
1
2
b)
For sake of argument, assuming that there are causes of action for
Contributory Unfair Competition and Contributory False Advertising under the Lanham Act:
i.
3
With pinpoint citations to legal authority, and without argument, what
4
are the elements for a cause of action for Contributory Unfair Competition under
5
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125?
ii.
6
With pinpoint citations to legal authority, and without argument, what
7
are the elements for a cause of action for Contributory False Advertising under the
8
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125?
9
No later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2012, the parties shall file either jointly or
additional briefing. Cf. Civil L. R. 7-3(d). Copies of the cases should not be filed in the docket, but
12
Northern District of California
separately a statement of supplemental authorities, with pinpoint citations, and without argument or
11
United States District Court
10
rather, Counsel should provide copies at the hearing. The parties will be given the opportunity at the
13
hearing to explain their reliance on such authority.
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2012
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?