Profitstreams, LLC v. Ameranth, Inc
Filing
23
ORDER denying 6 Motion for More Definite Statement, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. It is further ordered that Ameranth shall file their Response in Opposition to the Petition by 9/6/2011, Replies shall be filed by 9/19/2011. The Hearing on the Petition to Compel Arbitration is set for 9/26/2011 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 05. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/17/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PROFITSTREAMS, LLC,
CASE NO. 11 CV 0766 MMA (JMA)
Petitioner,
12
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT
AMERANTH INC.’S MOTION
UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12
vs.
13
14
AMERANTH, INC.,
[Doc. No. 6]
Respondent.
15
On April 13, 2011, Profitstreams, LLC filed a petition to compel arbitration against
16
17
Ameranth, Inc. [Doc. No. 1.] On April 25, 2011, Ameranth filed the pending motion for a more
18
definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), or, in the alternative, to dismiss the
19
petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). [Doc.
20
No. 6.] For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Ameranth’s Rule 12 motion, and
21
ORDERS Ameranth to respond to the petition.
BACKGROUND
22
On August 27, 2008, Profitstreams and Ameranth entered a Second Amended and Restated
23
24
License Agreement (“Agreement”), under which Profitstreams obtained a license for certain
25
technology owned by Ameranth. [Doc. No. 1, Exh. A.] A dispute has arisen between the parties
26
regarding the scope of the Agreement. [Doc. No. 1, p.3.]1 It appears the parties attempted to
27
28
1
Profitstreams invokes this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. [Doc. No.
1, p.4.]
-1-
11cv766
1
resolve the dispute informally, and when those efforts failed, Profitstreams sought to initiate
2
arbitration proceedings as required by the Agreement. [See Doc. No. 16, Exhs. A-I.]2 The
3
Agreement contains the following dispute resolution provisions:
4
14.2
Governing Law and Dispute Resolution:
5
14.2.1 . . .
6
14.2.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, including any question regarding its existence,
validity or termination, shall first be referred to each Party’s
appointed management, and the Parties shall use reasonable
efforts to resolve such dispute.
7
8
9
14.2.3 Any dispute that is not resolved as provided in the preceding
Section 14.2.2, whether before or after termination of this
Agreement, will be referred to binding arbitration under the
Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association in the city and state where the defendant party has
its headquarters. Except with respect to a breach of Section 2.5
or any other unauthorized transfer of Ameranth’s intellectual
property or proprietary rights, the arbitrator shall not be
authorized to award, and no party shall be obligated to pay to
the other Party hereunder, punitive, exemplary, consequential,
indirect, special or incidental damages or lost profits
(collectively “Special Damages”) with respect to any such
claim or controversy, nor shall any party seek Special Damages
relating to any matter under, arising out of or relating to this
Agreement in any other forum. Judgment upon the award of
the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof or such court may be asked to judicially confirm the
award and order its enforcement, as the case may be.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
14.2.4 . . .
19
14.2.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 14,
either Party shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief in any
court of competent jurisdiction for a breach or threatened
breach of Section 13 or any infringement of such Party’s
intellectual property or proprietary rights.
20
21
22
23
[Doc. No. 1, Exh. A, p.16 (bold and italics in original) (underline added).]
24
Ultimately, the parties reached an impasse regarding which claims could be sent to
25
arbitration, and Profitstreams filed its petition to compel Ameranth to participate in arbitration to
26
2
27
28
Ameranth objects to email correspondence submitted by Profitstreams on the grounds that
Profitstreams did not properly authenticate the correspondence, it lacks foundation, it is irrelevant, and
it is largely hearsay. [Doc. No. 18-1.] Because the Court does not rely on the correspondence to reach
its decision on Ameranth’s pending motion, the Court OVERRULES Ameranth’s objections without
prejudice, for purposes of the current motion only.
-2-
11cv766
1
resolve their dispute regarding the scope of the license. [Doc. No. 1.] The petition is drafted as a
2
motion, not as a civil complaint. Accordingly, Ameranth asserts Profitstreams’s case initiating
3
document is improper, and so vague that it cannot form a meaningful response. [Doc. No. 6.]
4
LEGAL STANDARDS
5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(6) provides that, to the extent applicable, the Federal
6
Rules of Civil Procedure govern arbitration proceedings under 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., unless the
7
arbitration laws provide otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 81(a)(6)(B).
8
I.
9
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 12(e)
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive
10
pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
11
response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); see Coleman v. Sterling, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47377 * 11
12
(S.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) (citing Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996)).
13
“[A] motion for a more definite statement should not be granted unless the defendant literally
14
cannot frame a responsive pleading.” Bureerong, 922 F. Supp at 1461 (citation omitted). A
15
motion under Rule 12(e) “is used to provide a remedy for an unintelligible pleading rather than a
16
correction for lack of detail.” Coleman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *11-12 (citing North County
17
Communs Corp. v. Sprint Communs Co., L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35825, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr.
18
12, 2010)). “Motions for a more definite statement are generally viewed with disfavor and are
19
rarely granted.” Id. (citing Cellars v. Pac. Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal.
20
1999)).
21
II.
22
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 12(b)(6)
When a party challenges a petition to compel arbitration by filing a motion to dismiss
23
under Rule 12(b)(6), the petition survives a motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a
24
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007);
25
Fund Raising v. Alaskans for Clean Water, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106549 *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
26
29, 2009). The court reviews the contents of the petition, accepting all factual allegations as true,
27
and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d
28
1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
-3-
11cv766
1
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and
2
then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --
3
U.S. -- , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
4
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
5
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 1949. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
6
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
7
Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it
8
‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing
9
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
10
11
12
DISCUSSION
I.
FORMAT OF PETITION
“A party to a valid arbitration agreement may petition any United States district court for
13
an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.”
14
Lansmont Corp. v. SPX Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65611 *16 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2011)
15
(internal marks omitted) (citing Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010,
16
1012 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4)). Ameranth asserts Profitstreams’s petition is
17
improperly formatted as a motion, and fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. [Doc. No. 6, p.5.] Ameranth argues the deficient pleading
19
makes it impossible for Ameranth to formulate a meaningful response to the petition, in part,
20
because it lacks numbered paragraphs and fails to identify specific causes of action and the
21
corresponding relief sought. The Court disagrees.
22
Section 6 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that, “[a]ny application to the
23
court [under the FAA] shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and
24
hearing of motions, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.” 9 U.S.C. § 6 (emphasis
25
added). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) requires a request for a court order to
26
be made by motion. Because Profitstreams initiated this action to request the Court to order the
27
parties to arbitration, the petition reasonably may proceed as a motion, and is subject to the
28
-4-
11cv766
1
Federal Rules governing motion practice, not pleadings. See, e.g., Patriot Mfg., Inc. v. Dixon, 399
2
F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1299 n.1 (S.D. Ala. 2005).
3
II.
4
ALLEGATIONS IN PETITION
Ameranth further contends Profitstreams’s allegations are insufficient because
5
Profitstreams does not assert it complied with the conditions precedent to invoking the arbitration
6
provisions, nor does Profitstreams specify the exact claims it desires to arbitrate and specify why
7
those claims are arbitrable. Again, the Court disagrees.
8
9
Profitstreams’s petition states with particularity the relief sought and identifies grounds for
that relief. Specifically, Profitstreams asserts the parties entered an Agreement on August 27,
10
2008, and that a dispute has arisen regarding the scope of the license in that Agreement. [Doc. No.
11
1, p.1.] Profitstreams alleges, it “believes that the license in the Agreement covers all of the
12
claims” of the patents at issue, whereas Ameranth “contends that the license granted in the
13
Agreement is limited to the subset of claims practiced by the Software.” [Id.] Profitstreams seeks
14
“a declaratory judgment regarding the scope of the license granted under the Agreement.” [Id. at
15
p.3.] Or in the alternative, to rescind the Agreement for a lack of meeting of the minds. [Id.]
16
Profitstreams asserts the Agreement requires that the parties resolve this dispute through
17
arbitration, but Ameranth refuses to agree on an arbitration service, thereby preventing
18
Profitstreams from initiating arbitration proceedings. [Id.]
19
While the Court does not now decide whether Profitstreams’s claims are subject to
20
arbitration,3 the Court concludes the petition is sufficient to survive Ameranth’s motion for a more
21
definite statement and motion to dismiss. The petition contains plausible allegations, sufficient for
22
Ameranth to compose a meaningful response to Profitstreams’s request that the Court order the
23
parties to arbitration.
24
25
///
26
27
28
3
For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Ameranth’s request for the Court to
take judicial notice of an action pending in Colorado. [Doc. No. 20.]
-5-
11cv766
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Ameranth’s motion for a more definite
3
statement, or, in the alternative, to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief
4
can be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameranth shall file its opposition to the
5
petition on or before September 6, 2011 and Profitstreams shall file its reply, if any, on or before
6
September 19, 2011. The hearing on Profitstreams’s petition to compel arbitration is hereby set
7
for September 26, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 17, 2011
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
11cv766
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?