Lucas et al v. Camacho et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying 89 Motion to Dismiss; denying 91 Motion to Dismiss; denying 97 Motion for Default Judgment and denying 98 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12

CASE NO. C11-5350BHS

v.
JOE CAMACHO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants George and Lori Parker’s

16
17

(“Parkers”) second and third motions to dismiss (Dkts. 89 & 91) and motions for default

18

judgment (Dkts. 97 & 98). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of the

19

motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated

20

herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21
22

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs Chassidy Lucas, Bianca Lucas, and CB Stormwater

23

(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho,

24

Angela Stephenson, and the Parkers. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs allege, in part, that they possess a

25

valid patent that is being infringed by the Parkers. Id. at 4-7.

26
27

On August 18, 2011, the Parkers filed a motion to dismiss and to grant their
counterclaim. Dkt. 51. On October 7, 2011, the Court denied the Parkers’ motion stating

28
ORDER - 1

1

that “the Parkers’ denial of the allegations and additional evidence outside the complaint

2

are insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs’ complaint is subject to dismissal.” Dkt. 76 at 2.

3
4
5
6

On November 6, 2011, the Parkers filed a second motion to dismiss. Dkt. 89. One
week later on November 13, 2011, the Parkers filed a third motion to dismiss. Dkt. 91.
Plaintiffs failed to respond to either motion.

7
8

On December 3, 2011, the Parkers filed a motion for default judgment. Dkt. 97.
On December 10, 2011, the Parkers filed another motion for default judgment. Dkt. 98.

9

Plaintiffs failed to respond to either motion.
10

II. DISCUSSION

11
12
13

A.

Motions to Dismiss
Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

14

Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

15

sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

16

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the complaint is

17

construed in the plaintiff’s favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir.

18

1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed factual

19

allegations but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a

20

“formulaic recitation” of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

21

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a

22

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. When deciding a motion to

23

dismiss, the Court’s consideration is limited to the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

24
25
26

In this case, reading the Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint liberally and taking the
material allegations as true, Plaintiffs state a plausible claim for patent infringement. The
Parkers’ mere denial of the allegations contained in the Complaint does not meet their

27

burden for either motion to dismiss. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ failure to follow the Local
28
ORDER - 2

1

Rules of Procedure does not support a motion to dismiss at this time. Therefore, the

2

Court denies the Parkers’ motions to dismiss.

3
4
5

B.

6
7
8

Redaction of Filings
Parkers claim that “Plaintiff has willfully defied Civil Rule 5.2(a),” which governs

“Redactions of Filings.” Dkt. 90 at 2. Namely, Parkers claim that Plaintiffs submitted an
anti-harassment order from Pierce County District Court that identifies by name the

9

Parkers’ minor children. Id. The Court has no evidence that the failure to redact was
10
11
12
13

“willful,” as Parkers allege. Even so, to remedy the prior failure to redact, the Court
hereby seals Exhibit F to the Addendum Declaration of Chassidy Lucas in Support of
Complaint and Response (Dkt. 77 at 33-35) and orders Plaintiffs to refile the same with

14

the names of the minor children redacted as mandated by Civil Rule 5.2(a).

15

D.

Joint Status Report
Parkers also claim that “Plaintiff has failed to follow the guidelines for litigation a

16
17

Patent lawsuit” under Local Patent Rule B 110, which governs the Joint Status Report.

18

Dkt. 92 at 6. To ensure efficient resolution of the case, the Court encourages all parties to

19

follow guidelines set forth in the civil and court rules. The Court orders that the parties

20

meet and confer to ensure compliance with rules that require joint input, including those

21

governing the submission of the Joint Status Report.

22

C.

23
24
25
26

Motions for Default Judgment
Parkers claim that they are entitled to an order of default under FRCP 55(a)

(Dkts. 97 & 98). But, as the defendants in the matter, FRCP 55(a) does not govern the
end result that the Parkers seek in these motions. Instead, to the extent that the Parkers
seek to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court repeats its finding that the Parkers have

27

failed to meet their burden on these motions.
28
ORDER - 3

1

III. ORDER

2

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Parkers’ second and third motions to

3
4

dismiss (Dkts. 89 & 91) and motions for default judgment (Dkts. 97 & 98) are DENIED.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2012.

A

5
6
7

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 4