Cree, Inc. v. Tarr Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying as Moot Defendants' 28 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/10/17. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CREE, INC.,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00506-GPC-NLS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

TARR, INC.; IRON ADS, LLC;
NATHAN MARTINEZ; DOES 1-10,
inclusive;

15
16

[ECF No. 28]

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Before the Court is Defendants’ “motion for clarification.” (ECF No. 28.) For the
reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) filed this action on March 14, 2017, asserting claims

21

relating to trademark infringement against Defendants Tarr, Inc.; Iron Ads, LLC; Nathan

22

Martinez; and ten unnamed individuals. (ECF No. 1.) On May 10, 2017, Defendants

23

filed a motion to dismiss Cree’s complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 16.) In the same

24

filing, Defendants alternatively sought a more definite statement under Federal Rule of

25

Civil Procedure 12(e). (See ECF No. 16-1 at 12–13.)

26
27

On July 28, 2017, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
the motion to dismiss, and denying the motion for a more definite statement. (ECF No.

28
1
3:17-cv-00506-GPC-NLS

1

24 (the “July 28 Order”).) The Court explained that Cree had alleged sufficient facts to

2

state plausible claims for relief and to adequately apprise Defendants of how they have

3

allegedly infringed Cree’s trademark. (Id. at 6–13.) The Court found, however, that

4

Plaintiff’s alter ego allegations were insufficient to state a plausible claim “that

5

[Defendants] Tarr and Iron Ads are the alter egos of Defendant Martinez.” (Id. at 14.)

6

The Court explained that the allegations failed to establish (1) a unity of interest between

7

Defendant Martinez and Tarr and Iron Ads, or (2) that adherence “to the fiction of the

8

separate existence of the corporation . . . would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.”

9

(Id. at 15–16.) Finally, the Court explained that a more definite statement was not

10

required from Plaintiff because the complaint is “sufficiently detailed to apprise

11

Defendants of the misconduct alleged and the claims against them.” (Id. at 17.) The

12

Court therefore granted Defendants’ motion only as to Cree’s alter ego allegations. The

13

Court gave Cree thirty days from the date of its order “to amend its complaint to cure the

14

deficiencies as identified by this order.” (Id. at 18.)

15

On September 1, 2017, Cree filed a notice stating that it “does not intend to file an

16

amended complaint in an effort to cure the deficiencies of the later ego allegations, as

17

identified by the Court’s July 28, 2017 Order, and intends to move forward on its existing

18

Complaint under the effects of [the] Court’s July 28, 2017 Order.” (ECF No. 25.)

19

On September 17, 2017, Defendants filed the pending “request for clarification.”

20

(ECF No. 28.) In their request, Defendants state that they “need to know which

21

allegations are withdrawn and which allegations remain,” and that they “would prefer

22

that Cree file an amended complaint that affirmatively withdraws Cree’s alter-ego

23

allegations and those allegations that rest on Cree’s alter-ego theory of liability.” (ECF

24

No. 28.)

25

The Court disagrees with Defendants’ assertion that the complaint, as it stands, is

26

confusing as to which allegations are still operative after the July 28 Order. In fact, the

27

Court stated as much in its ruling when addressing Defendants’ challenge to Cree’s alter

28

ego allegations:
2
3:17-cv-00506-GPC-NLS

1
2
3
4
5
6

The Court observes that its conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to plead an
alter ego relationship between Martinez and Tarr, along with Martinez and
Iron Ads, has a minimal effect on the pleadings. This is so because the
complaint has alleged that each of the Defendants are primarily liable for all
causes of action, and therefore none of Plaintiff’s causes of action rely on
the alter ego relationship to establish liability. See Compl. ¶ 11 (Defendants
are “jointly, severally and concurrently liable and responsible with one
another upon the causes of action hereinafter set forth.”).

7

(ECF No. 24 at 14 n.7 (emphasis added).) Because (1) only a few of the allegations in

8

the complaint refer to any aspect of alter ego liability (see ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 5–9), (2) the

9

causes of action asserted in the complaint do not rely on an alter ego relationship, and (3)

10

the Court has already determined that the complaint’s allegations are sufficiently clear to

11

apprise Defendants of the misconduct alleged and the claims against them, it is

12

unnecessary for Cree to file an amended complaint. The Court accepts Cree’s declination

13

to file an amended complaint in response to the July 28 Order. Defendants’ motion to

14

dismiss Cree’s claims of alter ego liability between Tarr, Inc., and Nathan Martinez, and

15

Iron Ads, LLC, and Nathan Martinez is GRANTED with prejudice.

16

Defendants’ motion to clarify (ECF No. 28) is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 10, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-00506-GPC-NLS