Enpac, LLC v. Lucas et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 48 Motion to Dismiss; Chassidy F Lucas, CB Stormwater LLC and Enpac LLC terminated as counter-claimant and counter-defendant. (TG; cc mailed to defendants)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 ENPAC, LLC, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 CASE NO. C11-0037BHS CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al., ORDER GRANTING ENPAC’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. 10 11 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Enpac, LLC’s (“Enpac”) motion to 12 dismiss counterclaim (Dkt. 48). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of the 13 14 15 motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 On January 7, 2011, Enpac filed a complaint against Defendants CB Stormwater, 17 18 LLC, and Chassidy F. Lucas (“Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity 19 and non-infringement and for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. 20 Dkt. 1. On June 30, 2011, Defendants filed a document entitled “Counterclaim.” Dkt. 21 46. 22 23 On July 14, 2011, Enpac filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim. Dkt. 48. Defendants did not respond. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 First, the Court may consider a party’s failure to respond to a motion as an 26 admission that the motion has merit. Local Rule 7(b)(2). In this case, Defendants have 27 28 ORDER - 1 1 failed to respond to Enpac’s motion. Therefore, the Court will consider Defendants’ 2 failure as an admission that Enpac’s motion has merit. 3 Second, in asserting a counterclaim, a party must provide a short and plain 4 statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The Supreme 5 Court has held that a party must plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on 6 its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim does not satisfy 7 the pleading requirements by making “naked assertions devoid of further factual 8 enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 9 10 11 In this case, Enpac argues that Defendants’ counterclaim fails to satisfy any pleading requirement. Dkt. 48 at 1-4. The Court agrees. Therefore, the Court grants Enpac’s motion. 12 Finally, Enpac requests that the Court set a scheduling conference before the Court 13 to avoid certain challenges in communicating with Defendants regarding the joint status 14 15 16 report. Dkt. 48 at 4. The Court finds that there is no need to depart from the normal practice of submitting a joint status report without an in-person scheduling conference. If 17 a party fails to cooperate in preparing the joint status report, Enpac may file an ex parte 18 status report detailing the reasons why the parties were unable to cooperate. III. ORDER 19 20 21 22 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Enpac’s motion to dismiss counterclaim (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED and Defendants’ counterclaim (Dkt. 46) is DISMISSED. DATED this 1st day of September, 2011. 23 24 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 2

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?