Seattle Pacific Industries, Inc v. S3 Holding LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying defendants' 52 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SEATTLE PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
S3 HOLDING LLC, et al.,

Case No. C18-0224RSL
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

13
14
15

On April 10, 2019, the Court found that plaintiff Seattle Pacific Industries (“SPI”)

16

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract claim in the amount of

17

$160,000 and on its trademark infringement claim in the amount of $31,136. Defendants

18

filed a timely motion for reconsideration arguing that the award of actual damages under

19

the Lanham Act constituted manifest error because (1) SPI did not request actual damages

20

and (2) its recovery of liquidated damages under the contract precludes an award of actual

21

damages.

22

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only

23

upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority

24

which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable

25
26

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

diligence.” LCR Rule 7(h)(1). Defendants have not met their burden. Contrary to their

2

first argument, SPI expressly sought actual damages in the form of lost royalties. See Dkt.

3

# 28 at 5. The second argument is simply a repackaged version of the economic loss

4

argument the Court previously rejected. There is no risk of double recovery in the

5

circumstances presented here. The rights, duties, and liabilities imposed by the contract

6

are distinct from those under the Lanham Act, and the remedies provided cover different

7

wrongs. See Dkt. # 49 at 6 (“Default and termination of the contract stripped S3 of its

8

contractual right to use the marks, triggered certain obligations regarding inventory and

9

other items, and accelerated the due date of the year’s GMRP and Advertising payments

10

(discussed below). SPI seeks to enforce those provisions through its breach of contract

11

claim. Once the License Agreement was terminated, the relationship of the parties was

12

again governed by the Lanham Act, and S3’s unlicensed use of the trademarks caused

13

non-contract injuries that are remediable pursuant to the terms of the Act.”).

14
15
16

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 52)
is DENIED.

17
18

Dated this 3rd day of May, 2019.

19
20

A

21

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION - 2