UnitedHealth Group, Inc. v. United HealthCare, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying Defendant United HealthCare, Inc.'s 20 Objection to the Magistrate Judge's 19 Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00224-RCJ-NJK
ORDER

This is a Lanham Act case. Pending before the Court is an Objection (ECF No. 20) to the

13

magistrate judge’s Order (ECF No. 19). For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the

14

Objection.

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Minnesota corporation UnitedHealth Group, Inc. has sued Nevada corporation United

17

Healthcare, Inc., a.k.a. United Healthcare Medical Devices, Inc. (“MDI”) and three Vietnamese

18

entities (collectively, “Vietnamese Defendants”): United Healthcare J.S.C. (“JSC”), United

19

Healthcare Factory (“Factory”), and Xuan Vy Co., Ltd. (“XV”) in this Court for trademark

20

infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act,

21

as well as for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. Only MDI has

22

answered. Vietnamese Defendants have not answered or appeared.

23

On July 21, 2014, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to serve the Vietnamese

24

Defendants by email and first class international mail. MDI has objected to the magistrate

25

judge’s order.

1

II.

2
3

LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 72(a) permits a district court judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-

dispositive ruling that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law:

4

When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred
to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct
the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after
being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

5
6
7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Local R. IB 3-1(a). “Under Rule 72(a), ‘[a] finding is “clearly

9

erroneous” when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire

10

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”

11

Rafano v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., No. 06-CV-5367 (JFB)(ARL), 2009 WL 789440, at

12

*12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009) (quoting Burgie v. Euro Brokers, Inc., No. 05 Civ.

13

0968(CPS)(KAM), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71386, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2008) (quoting

14

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602,

15

622 (1993))). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,

16

case law or rules of procedure.” Id.

17

III.

18

ANALYSIS
MDI argues that the order permitting alternative service was clearly erroneous, because it

19

was based upon erroneous facts presented to the magistrate judge by Plaintiff and recited in the

20

magistrate judge’s Order. The Court denies the motion for three reasons.

21

First, Plaintiff is correct that because MDI’s counsel does not represent Vietnamese

22

Defendants, it has no standing to object to the grant of leave to alternative service upon those

23

Defendants. Second, the Court notes MDI’s counsel’s denial of Plaintiff’s counsel’s

24

characterizations of the disputed telephone call and what may have been said during the call, but

25

Plaintiff’s counsel’s characterizations of the conversation between counsel—and the Court takes
Page 2 of 3

1

no position on the issue—is not relevant to whether alternative service was appropriate as to

2

Vietnamese Defendants. Only the difficulty in serving Vietnamese Defendants is relevant to

3

whether alternative service is appropriate, not any comments allegedly made by MDI’s counsel

4

concerning whether MDI is related to Vietnamese Defendants, whether a global settlement would

5

be required, or whether MDI’s counsel may have been in contact with Vietnamese Defendants.

6

The magistrate judge’s recitations of Plaintiff’s allegations in this regard may have been

7

surplusage, but that does not render the conclusion of the Order incorrect, i.e., that alternative

8

service should be permitted. MDI does not appear to dispute Plaintiff’s difficulties in serving

9

Vietnamese Defendants. Although the magistrate judge may or may not have improperly

10

credited the alleged acknowledgment that Vietnamese Defendants were related to MDI, the

11

magistrate judge’s Order was not in erroneous under Rule 4(f)(3). As the magistrate judge

12

properly noted, under the present circumstances, any method of service a court orders is

13

permissible if constitutional and not prohibited by international agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

4(f)(3). There is no basis for setting aside the Order.

15

CONCLUSION

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated this 16th day of September,
Dated this 18th day of August, 2014. 2014.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3