Black v. Irving Materials, Inc.

Filing 215

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 205 Motion for Additional Findings.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2020)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JEFFERY DEAN BLACK,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN
BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS

v.

14
15

Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK

IRVING MATERIALS, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 205

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Jeffery Dean Black (“Black”) filed the instant lawsuit

19

against Defendant and Counterclaimant Irving Materials, Inc. (“Irving”). Before the Court is

20

Black’s motion for additional findings. ECF No. 205. For the reasons discussed below, the Court

21

DENIES Black’s motion for additional findings.

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

In the instant case, Black asserted a claim for declaratory relief that Black lacked bad faith

24

and thus did not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) pursuant to

25

15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v). ECF No. 199 at 15–16. Black also initially asserted a claim for

26

reverse domain name hijacking in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv). ECF No. 11 at 10.

27

The Court granted Irving’s motion for summary judgment with respect to this second claim. ECF

28

1
Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK
ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

1
2

No. 83 at 5.
Irving asserted two counterclaims: (1) a counterclaim that Black committed cybersquatting

3

under the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); and (2) a counterclaim for declaratory relief under 28

4

U.S.C. § 2201 that Black violated the ACPA. Id. at 16–17. In response to Irving’s counterclaims,

5

Black asserted several affirmative defenses, including a Safe Harbor defense under the ACPA and

6

a laches defense. ECF No. 28.

7

Beginning on June 10, 2019, the Court held a three-day jury trial on Black’s claims and

8

Irving’s counterclaims. ECF No. 199 at 19. Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict in the

9

jury’s advisory capacity that Black had proven by a preponderance of the evidence Black’s claim
for declaratory relief that Black did not violate the ACPA. Id. at 22. The jury also returned a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

verdict that Irving had not proven Irving’s ACPA counterclaim by a preponderance of the

12

evidence, which was automatically dispositive of Irving’s counterclaim for declaratory relief. Id.

13

In light of this verdict, “the jury did not need to and did not reach questions regarding Black’s Safe

14

Harbor or laches defenses.” Id. at 23.

15

The Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in the instant case on August 10,

16

2019. Id. In particular, the Court held that “the jury’s verdict that found that Irving did not prove

17

its ACPA cybersquatting counterclaim by a preponderance of the evidence was supported by

18

substantial evidence.” Id. at 36. As a consequence of that finding, the Court also found that

19

“Irving did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence its counterclaim for declaratory relief

20

that Black violated the ACPA.” Id. Finally, the Court found that “Black proved by a

21

preponderance of the evidence Black’s declaratory relief claim that Black lacked bad faith intent

22

and thus did not violate the ACPA.” Id. In light of these findings, the Court enjoined Irving from

23

its efforts to force Black to transfer the imi.com domain name to Irving, id., and directed that

24

judgment be entered in favor of Black, ECF No. 200. The Court did not issue any findings or

25

conclusions with respect to Black’s Safe Harbor defense under the ACPA or Black’s laches

26

defense.

27
28

Black filed the instant motion for additional findings on September 9, 2019. ECF No. 205
2
Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK
ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

1

(“Mot.”). With the instant motion for additional findings, Black now requests that the Court make

2

the additional findings that “Mr. Black proved by a preponderance of substantial evidence that

3

Irving’s cybersquatting claim is barred both by laches and by Mr. Black’s ACPA ‘good faith’ safe

4

harbor defense.” Id. at 12. On September 23, 2019, Irving opposed the motion, ECF No. 207

5

(“Opp’n”), and on September 30, 2019, Black filed a reply, ECF No. 208 (“Reply”).

6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b), “[o]n a party’s motion filed no later

7

than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings—or make additional

9

findings—and may amend the judgment accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). “Motions under

10

Rule 52(b) are primarily designed to correct findings of fact which are central to the ultimate

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

decision; the Rule is not intended to serve as a vehicle for a rehearing.” ATS Prods. Inc. v.

12

Ghiorso, No. 10-4880, 2012 WL 1067547, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2012) (emphasis added). In

13

other words, “Rule 52(b) motions are granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact or

14

to address newly discovered evidence or controlling case law.” Id.; see also 700 Valencia St. LLC

15

v. Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC, No. 15-cv-04931-JCS, 2017 WL 4680069 (N.D. Cal.

16

Oct. 18, 2017) (“Motions under Rule 52(b) are granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or

17

fact or to address newly discovered evidence.”). “Furthermore, a motion to amend a court's

18

factual and legal findings is properly denied where the proposed additional facts would not affect

19

the outcome of the case or are immaterial to the court’s conclusions.” ATS Prods. Inc., 2012 WL

20

1067547, at *1 (citing Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Atropos Island, 777 F.2d 1344, 1352 (9th Cir. 1985)).

21

“Rulings on motions to amend findings are committed to the sound discretion of the district court

22

and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.” 9C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.

23

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2582 (3d. ed. 2018).

24

III.

25

DISCUSSION
As discussed in the foregoing, Black requests that the Court make the additional findings

26

that Black proved by a preponderance of evidence that Black’s Safe Harbor defense under the

27

ACPA and that Black’s laches defense barred Irving’s ACPA cybersquatting counterclaim. Black

28

3
Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK
ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

1

files the Rule 52(b) motion “solely for purposes of assisting Ninth Circuit review in the event

2

Irving appeals the jury verdict and/or the Court’s Judgment.” Mot. at 12. Black’s motion suffers

3

from at least two independently fatal defects.

4

First, Black utterly fails to identify any “manifest errors of law or fact,” nor does Black

5

raise the existence of “newly discovered evidence or controlling case law,” that would justify

6

amendment of the Court’s findings. ATS Prods. Inc., 2012 WL 1067547, at *1; see also Gutierrez

7

v. Johnson & Johnson, 743 F. Supp. 2d 418, 422 (D.N.J. 2010) (“Plaintiffs do not contend that the

8

Court committed plain error of law or fact, and do not offer any newly discovered evidence. . . .

9

The Court declines to grant plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 52(b).”). Black requests, instead, that
the Court make further legal conclusions solely on the basis of the evidence that was presented at

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

trial and that formed the basis of the Court’s findings of fact. Mot. at 3–4. Indeed, the two

12

affirmative defenses that Black invokes “were available and raised at trial, and this reason alone is

13

sufficient to deny [Black’s] Motion.” Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA)

14

Inc., No. 8:14-cv-298-JLS-JPRx, 2017 WL 3485781, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017).

15

Moreover, the applicability of the two affirmative defenses Black invokes is immaterial to

16

the outcome of the instant case, and this reason alone is also sufficient to deny Black’s motion.

17

See Zuniga-Hurtado v. Holder, No. CV-12-01927-PHX-GMS, 2013 WL 3833212, at *1 (D. Ariz.

18

July 24, 2013) (“[A] motion to amend is properly denied where the proposed ground would not

19

affect the outcome of the case or is immaterial to the court’s conclusions.”). Irving failed to prove

20

its counterclaims by a preponderance of evidence, so any affirmative defenses that Black may

21

have to those counterclaims are irrelevant here. ECF No. 199 at 36. Rule 52(b) simply does not

22

provide Black with a vehicle to solicit dicta from the Court favorable to Black’s position.

23

Second, as noted, Black files the instant motion “solely for purposes of assisting Ninth

24

Circuit review in the event Irving appeals the jury verdict and/or the Court’s Judgment.” Mot. at

25

12. However, in opposition, Irving categorically states that “[t]here will be no appeal here.”

26

Opp’n at 4. The Court is disappointed that the parties were unable to resolve the instant motion

27

between themselves. See ECF No. 208-1. Nonetheless, the Court takes Irving at its word as an

28

4
Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK
ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

1

officer of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Because Irving has indicated that Irving will not

2

appeal, even Black’s stated, inadequate justification for the instant motion is undermined.
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Black’s motion for additional findings.

3
4
5
6

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Black’s motion for additional findings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: January 9, 2020
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No. 17-CV-06734-LHK
ORDER DENYING JEFFERY DEAN BLACK’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS