East West, LLC v. Rahman et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 5/15/2012. (klau, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
EAST WEST, LLC d/b/a
CARIBBEAN CRESCENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAH RAHMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11cv1380 (JCC/TCB)
M E M O R A N D U M
O P I N I O N
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Shah
Rahman and Caribbean Crescent, Inc.’s (“CCI”) (collectively
“Defendants”) motion for judgment on the pleadings [Dkt. 20] and
Plaintiff East West, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “East West”) motion
to strike new arguments raised in Defendants’ reply brief or for
leave to file a sur-reply [Dkt. 38].
For the following reasons,
the Court will deny both motions as moot.
I. Background
This case arises out of a business dispute involving
alleged trademark and trade name infringement and breach of
contract.
Plaintiff filed suit on December 22, 2011.
[Dkt. 1.]
The original complaint contained eleven causes of action: (1)
federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and
false representations in commerce under Section 43(a) of the
1
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count 1); (2) common law
trademark infringement (Count 2); (3) federal unfair
competition, passing off, false advertising, trade name
infringement and/or false designation of origin under Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act (Count 3); (4) common law unfair
competition and trade name infringement (Count 4); (5) violation
of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va. Code § 59.1-196, et
seq. (Count 5); (6) violation of the Virginia Criminal Code, Va.
Code § 18.2-216, et seq. (Count 6); (7) breach of contract
(Count 7); (8) unjust enrichment (Count 8); (9) conversion
(Count 9); (10) cancellation of registration (Count 10); and
(11) for permanent injunctive relief (Count 11).
Defendants filed an answer on February 16, 2012.
[Dkt. 13.]
In addition, Defendant CCI filed two counterclaims
against East West [Dkt. 14] and a third-party complaint against
Third-Party Defendants Naeem Zai and Mohammed Sadiq [Dkt. 15].
CCI alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, and
false designation of origin arising under both the Lanham Act
and the common law.
East West answered the counterclaims on
March 7, 2012, [Dkt. 18], while Zai and Sadiq answered the
third-party complaint on March 13, 2012 [Dkt. 19].
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on March 14, 2012.
[Dkt. 20.]
On March 23, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint [Dkt.
2
27], which was accompanied by a proposed amended complaint [Dkt.
28-1]. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for judgment
on the pleadings on March 27, 2012.
[Dkt. 30.]
On April 2,
2012, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, [Dkt.
33], portions of which Plaintiff later moved to strike [Dkt.
38.]
In the alternative, Plaintiff sought leave to file a sur-
reply.
Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to
strike on April 18, 2012 [Dkt. 48], to which Plaintiff replied
on April 24, 2012 [Dkt. 54].
On April 6, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.
[Dkt. 42.]
Plaintiff
filed a reply on April 12, 2012 [Dkt. 43] in which it
voluntarily withdrew certain claims and allegations, but omitted
a proposed amended complaint.
On April 13, 2012, Magistrate
Judge Buchanan denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
without prejudice.
[Dkt. 44.]
Plaintiff was ordered to
promptly re-file a motion for leave to amend and to attach a
proposed amended complaint that reflected the changes described
in its reply brief.
Plaintiff filed a second motion for leave to amend its
complaint on April 17, 2012.
[Dkt. 45.]
Plaintiff submitted a
proposed amended complaint as ordered by Magistrate Judge
Buchanan [Dkt. 46-1], but also included two new claims:
(1)
tortious interference with business relationship/intentional
3
interference with economic advantage (Count 12); and (2)
violation of Virginia’s Trade Secret Misappropriations Act
(Count 13).
Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
second motion for leave to amend on April 30, 2012 [Dkt. 55], to
which Plaintiff replied on May 2, 2012 [Dkt. 56].
On May 4,
2012, Magistrate Judge Buchanan granted Plaintiff’s second
motion for leave to amend its complaint.
[Dkt. 58.]
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and
Plaintiff’s motion to strike or for leave to file a sur-reply
are now before the Court.
II.
Analysis
The Court may deny as moot a Rule 12 motion filed
before an amended complaint.
See Ramotnik v. Fisher, 568 F.
Supp. 2d 598, 599 n.1 (D. Md. 2008); Karnette v. Wolpoff &
Abramson, LLP, 444 F. Supp. 2d 640, 642 (E.D. Va. 2006).
That
is clearly the appropriate course here, given that Plaintiff
added two new claims to the now-operative complaint after
briefing on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings
concluded.
In addition, Defendants raised new arguments in
their reply brief, which will be best addressed after a fresh
round of briefing.
Because Defendants’ motion for judgment on
the pleadings is denied as moot, so too is Plaintiff’s motion to
strike new arguments raised in Defendants’ reply brief or for
leave to file a sur-reply.
4
III.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’
motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot.
The Court will
likewise deny Plaintiff’s motion to strike or for leave to file
a sur-reply as moot.
An appropriate Order will issue.
May 15, 2012
Alexandria, Virginia
/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
5
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?