The Bass Tank LLC v. MET Inc

Filing 49

ORDER granting 46 Defendants Motion to Strike Jury Demand; denying 47 Joint Motion for Scheduling Order, as set forth herein. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/12/2025. (jee)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THE BASS TANK LLC, an Oklahoma
Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
MET INC. D/B/A BASS BOAT
ELECTRONICS, a Tennessee Corporation
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-22-1086-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Jury Demand and Memorandum
in Support of Its Motion (“Motion to Strike”) [Doc. No. 46], to which Plaintiff filed a
Response [Doc. No. 48].
In the Motion to Strike, Defendant asks the Court to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand,
as “there is no statutory or Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial given the equitable
nature of the remedies being sought by Plaintiff.” Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 1. Further,
because the Court’s summary-judgment ruling limited the universe of damages available
to Plaintiff, “conducting a jury trial . . . would be an inefficient use of judicial resources.”
Id.
In an effort to expedite resolution of this matter, and assuming the Court strikes
Plaintiff’s jury demand, Defendant proposes the following:
• Admitting liability with respect to Plaintiff’s Count III for cyberpiracy
with Defendant maintaining all arguments with respect to minimizing the
amount of statutory damages to be awarded by the Court pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1117(d).
• Admitting liability pursuant to Plaintiff’s claims for trademark
infringement and/or unfair competition such that Plaintiff is entitled to
Defendant’s “profits” pursuant to 15 US.C. § 1117(a) for sales between
December 22, 2022 to January 6, 2023 (with Defendant still being entitled
to prove “all elements of cost or deduction claimed”).
Id. at 8. Defendant clarifies, however, that “expressly excluded from the above admissions
are any arguments with respect to whether Defendants actions were willful and/or whether
the circumstances of the present [case] would be considered ‘exceptional’ pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1117(a).” Id.
In response, Plaintiff agrees to voluntarily withdraw its jury demand, so long as
Defendant’s admissions to liability are enforced by the Court. Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. to Strike
at 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a Court order “granting judgment of liability on
Plaintiff’s Count III for cyberpiracy and on Plaintiff’s claims for trademark infringement
and/or unfair competition under federal law and directing Plaintiff’s to file a voluntary
withdrawal of its jury demand.” Id.
Based on Plaintiff’s agreement to voluntarily withdraw its jury demand,
Defendant’s Motion to Strike is rendered MOOT as to that request, and Plaintiff is
directed to file a voluntary withdrawal of its jury demand. However, in an effort to
expedite resolution of this case, and pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the Motion to
Strike is GRANTED as to Defendant’s admissions of liability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:
• Defendant is liable to Plaintiff under Plaintiff’s Count III (Cyberpiracy).
See Compl. [Doc. No. 1], ¶¶ 33-43. However, Defendant maintains all
arguments with respect to minimizing the amount of statutory damages
2

to be awarded by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).
• Defendant is liable to Plaintiff under Plaintiff’s claims for trademark
infringement and/or unfair competition such that Plaintiff is entitled to
Defendant’s “profits” pursuant to 15 US.C. § 1117(a) for sales between
December 22, 2022 to January 6, 2023 (with Defendant still being entitled
to prove “all elements of cost or deduction claimed”).
• Expressly excluded from the above admissions are any arguments with
respect to whether Defendant’s actions were willful and/or whether the
circumstances of the present case would be considered “exceptional”
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2025. 1

. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge

1

The parties have also filed a Joint Motion for Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 47]. But given the
limited scope of issues that remain, the Court has requested that this case be re-referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for a judicial settlement conference. The Court anticipates
an order from Judge Erwin in the near future in which he provides more detail on this front.
If the judicial settlement conference with Judge Erwin is unsuccessful, the Court will take up
scheduling with the parties at that time. The Joint Motion for Scheduling Order is thus DENIED
without prejudice to resubmission.

3