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)

Download PDF
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?