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)
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?