Enpac, LLC v. Lucas et al
Filing
96
ORDER denying 69 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG; cc mailed to defendant)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
ENPAC, LLC,
6
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
CASE NO. C11-0037BHS
v.
CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,
Defendants.
10
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
11
12
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Chassidy Lucas’s (“Lucas”)
13
motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 69). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in
14
support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies
15
the motion for the reasons stated herein.
16
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
17
On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff Enpac, LLC (“Enpac”) filed a complaint for
18
19
20
declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, non-infringement, and violations of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. Dkt. 1. Enpac seeks a declaratory judgment that its
product does not infringe any claims of United States Patent No. 7,771,591, which was
21
issued to Lucas. Id.
22
23
24
25
On February 8, 2012, Lucas filed a document entitled “Declaration of Chassidy F.
Lucas in Support of Additional Damages and Motion Request for Injunction.” Dkt. 69.
The Court construed the document as a motion for a preliminary injunction and noted it
26
accordingly. On February 27, 2012, Enpac responded. Dkt. 72. On February 29, 2012,
27
Lucas replied. Dkt. 74.
28
ORDER - 1
1
II. DISCUSSION
2
The court may issue a preliminary injunction where a party establishes (1) a
3
likelihood of success on the merits, that (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
4
absence of preliminary relief, that (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (4)
5
that the public interest favors an injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632
6
F.3d 1127, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2011); Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct.
7
365, 374 (2008). A party can also satisfy the first and third elements of the test by raising
8
serious questions going to the merits of its case and a balance of hardships that tips
9
sharply in its favor. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1137–38.
10
11
In this case, Enpac argues that, among other significant deficiencies, Lucas’s
motion fails to “address any of the factors that might support the granting of an
12
injunction.” Dkt. 72 at 2. The Court agrees. Moreover, after review of both the motion
13
and Lucas’s reply, Lucas’s conclusory allegations are vague and unorganized to the
14
15
extent that the Court is unable to ascertain what conduct Lucas seeks to have enjoined.
III. ORDER
16
17
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Lucas’s motion for a preliminary
18
injunction (Dkt. 69) is DENIED because Lucas has failed to meet the burden for a
19
preliminary injunction.
20
DATED this 21st day of March, 2012.
21
22
A
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
23
24
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?