Enpac, LLC v. Lucas et al
Filing
104
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 88 Defendants' Motion and amending preliminary injunction.(TG; cc mailed to defendants)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
ENPAC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
CASE NO. C11-0037BHS
CHASSIDY F. LUCAS d/b/a CB
STORMWATER,
12
Defendants.
ORDER AMENDING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants CB Stormwater, LLC1, and
15
Chassidy F. Lucas’s (“Lucas”) motion for declaratory judgment, summary judgment,
16
dismissal, and default (Dkt. 88) and the Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. 97). The Court
17
has reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the
18
remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
19
20
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 7, 2011, Enpac filed a complaint against Lucas for declaratory
21
judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement and for violations of the Lanham Act,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. Dkt. 1.
Enpac also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 2. On January 14,
2011, Enpac filed affidavits of service showing that both the complaint and the motion
1
Subsequent to the filing of this action, CB Stormwater LLC was dissolved and Chassidy
Lucas is conducting the business as a sole proprietorship under the name CB Stormwater.
See Dkt. 63.
ORDER - 1
1
were served on Defendants. Dkts. 7 & 8. Lucas failed to respond to the motion. On
2
February 4, 2011, Enpac replied. Dkt. 11. On February 8, 2011, the Court granted the
3
motion and ordered that “Defendants are ENJOINED from representing or implying
4
that any products sold by Enpac infringe any claims of [Lucas’s] patent.” Dkt. 16 at 2
5
(emphasis in original).
6
7
8
On March 6, 2012, Enpac filed a motion for contempt. Dkt. 80. On April 9, 2012,
the Court denied the motion, but ordered Lucas to “show cause why the preliminary
injunction should not be amended to prevent Lucas from contacting any of Enpac’s
9
distributors or customers.” Dkt. 99. Lucas filed a response that same day. Dkt. 100. On
10
11
April 11, 2012, Enpac responded. Dkt. 101. Lucas filed a reply that same day. Dkt. 102.
On March 10, 2012, Lucas filed a brief entitled “Motion Request for Declaratory
12
13
14
Judgement, Summary Judgment, Dismissal, and Default.” Dkt. 88. On March 23, 2012,
Enpac responded. Dkt. 97.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
15
Enpac asserts that, on February 28, 2012, Lucas contacted New Pig Corporation of
16
17
Tipton, Pennsylvania (“New Pig”). Dkt. 83, Declaration of Tracey Weyandt
18
(“Weyandt”), ¶ 2. Ms. Weyandt, a New Pig customer service representative, claims that
19
she answered a phone call from Lucas. Id. On February 29, 2012, Ms. Weyandt sent an
20
email stating that Lucas threatened to sue New Pig for advertising Enpac’s products on its
21
website. Id., ¶ 4.
22
23
Lucas concedes that she contacted New Pig, but declares that she only inquired as
to whether Enpac’s product was available for sale. Dkt. 86, ¶ 11.
24
25
26
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Lucas’s Motion
Although Lucas moves for both dismissal of Enpac’s claims and affirmative relief
27
of a declaratory judgment, Lucas fails to cite a single rule or law in support of theses
28
ORDER - 2
1
requests. Moreover, Lucas fails to meet the burden for any dispositive motion. See Fed.
2
R. Civ. P. 12 & 56. Therefore, the Court denies Lucas’s motion.
3
B.
4
Preliminary Injunction
In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Lucas confuses the issue of
5
protecting her patent with the issue of contacting Enpac’s specific distributors. To be
6
clear, the Court is not enjoining Lucas from enforcing her rights under the patent laws.
7
However, for the course of this proceeding, the Court is enjoining Lucas’s contact with
8
the distributors and sellers of Enpac’s products. Therefore, the Court amends and
9
expands the preliminary injunction. Lucas is hereby informed that failure to comply with
10
11
the foregoing preliminary injunction may result in contempt of Court and monetary
sanctions.
12
IV. ORDER
13
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Lucas’s motion for declaratory judgment,
14
15
16
17
summary judgment, dismissal, and default (Dkt. 88) is DENIED and the preliminary
injunction (Dkt. 16) is amended as follows:
“Defendants are ENJOINED from representing or implying that any products sold
18
by Enpac infringe any claims of [Lucas’s] patent and from contacting any distributor or
19
seller of Enpac’s products.”
20
DATED this 20th day of April, 2012.
21
22
A
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3
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?