Piano Gallery Madison, LLC v. Create Music, LLC et al
Filing
16
ORDER granting in part 10 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Piano Gallery Madison, LLC's claim under Wis. Stat. 100.18 is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/6/2018. (jls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PIANO GALLERY MADISON, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION & ORDER
CREATE MUSIC, LLC, BENJAMIN GARBER, and
DEBRA GALLA,
17-cv-713-jdp
Defendants.
Plaintiff Piano Gallery Madison, LLC, (PGM) operated Billings Piano Gallery in
Madison, Wisconsin, until 2014. Then PGM’s managing member, Grant Billings, moved to
Florida and sold the business to defendant Create Music, LLC (CM). PGM alleges that CM
and the other defendants failed to perform as they were required to by the asset purchase
agreement executed by the parties. So PGM filed a complaint against defendants alleging
breach of contract, civil theft, violation of Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, trade
name infringement, and violation of the Lanham Act. Dkt. 5.
Defendants move to dismiss several of PGM’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 10. The court will grant defendants’ motion in part, dismissing
PGM’s claim under § 100.18.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
The court draws the following facts from PGM’s complaint, Dkt. 5, and accepts them
as true for the purpose of deciding defendants’ motion. Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC, 815
F.3d 1082, 1087 (7th Cir. 2016).
Grant Billings, like his father and grandfather, sells pianos. In 2007, Billings formed
PGM, which sold Steinway & Sons pianos at a gallery in Madison, Wisconsin, under the trade
name Billings Piano Gallery. Defendant Debra Galla worked as PGM’s office manager.
Defendant Benjamin Garber was another PGM employee.
In June 2014, Billings decided to move to Florida to run his father’s Steinway piano
gallery there. He negotiated a sale of the Madison store to Garber. Billings’s and Garber’s
attorneys drafted an asset purchase agreement under which PGM sold its business and assets
to CM, a limited liability company of which Garber is the sole member. Billings and Garber
executed the agreement, which became effective on October 15, 2014. Galla continued to work
as the office manager for CM.
Several terms are significant to the parties’ dispute:
The agreement defines the assets to include the “limited right
and license to use and do business under the service marks
‘Piano
Gallery
Madison,’
‘Billings
Piano,”
‘www.billingspiano.com,’ and ‘Billings Piano Gallery.’” Id. at
3.
It specifies that CM’s use of PGM’s marks “inures to the
benefit of” PGM and that if PGM determined that CM’s “uses
of the Marks is inconsistent with [PGM’s] quality standards .
. . or . . . with maintaining the goodwill inherent in the Marks,”
it could require CM to “cease all such disapproved use of the
Marks.” Id.
The agreement specifically excludes from the purchased assets
all proceeds from piano sales under contract or purchase order
as of the effective date.
In the agreement, CM agrees to pay PGM in part by obtaining
a release of PGM’s and Billings’s obligations to GE Capital for
28 pianos called the “floor plan inventory.” The agreement
specifies that CM was to obtain the release by October 24 and
until it did so, “title to the [floor plan] inventory . . . remains
with [PGM] a[nd] any proceeds of sales from any such
2
inventory shall be turned over to [PGM] immediately upon
receipt by [CM].” Id. at 8.
The parties agreed to pay half of the “fees and expenses
incurred . . . in connection with . . . the execution, delivery
and performance” of the agreement, including attorney fees.
Id. at 15.
PGM alleges that CM did not abide by the terms of the agreement. It did not pay half
of “the fees that PGM incurred related to drafting and executing the” agreement. Dkt. 5, at 5.
It did not obtain the GE release until December 11. Both before and after the effective date of
the agreement, Garber and Galla retained payments for pianos that, under the terms of the
agreement, should have been given to PGM. They altered accounting records to hide these
missing payments. Billings also discovered that before the effective date of the agreement,
Garber used a PGM credit card without permission. PGM complained to CM about these
things multiple times. In July 2015, Billings directed CM to cease all use of the marks licensed
in the agreement by August 1, 2015. CM did not do so.
ANALYSIS
Defendants move to dismiss PGM’s claims of civil theft, deceptive trade practices, trade
name infringement, and Lanham Act violations. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), a complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, that is,
facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Firestone Fin. Corp. v. Meyer, 796 F.3d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The court is not bound to accept alleged
legal conclusions. Id. at 827.
3
PGM “concedes that [it] lacks standing to pursue” a deceptive trade practices claim and
“stipulates it will not seek relief under Wis. Stat. § 100.18.” Dkt. 12, at 1 n.1. So the court will
grant defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim.
A. Civil theft
PGM alleges defendants committed civil theft in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 895.446(3)
and 943.20(1)(b) when they (1) retained payments made to PGM before the agreement’s
effective date; (2) retained proceeds from floor-plan-inventory pianos sold before they obtained
the GE release; (3) retained proceeds from piano sales under contract or purchase order as of
the effective date; (4) used a PGM credit card without permission. Section 943.20(1)(b)
provides that an individual commits civil theft when he or she
[b]y virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as
trustee or bailee, having possession or custody of money . . . ,
intentionally uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of
such money . . . without the owner’s consent, contrary to his or
her authority, and with intent to convert to his or her own use or
to the use of any other person except the owner.
By its terms, the civil theft statute would apply to the allegations in the complaint. But
defendants argue that PGM’s civil theft claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Wisconsin’s economic loss doctrine prevents a plaintiff from claiming tort damages for purely
economic losses when the underlying wrongful conduct is a breach of a contract between the
parties. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2004 WI 32, ¶ 24, 270 Wis. 2d 146, 677 N.W.2d
233. Wisconsin courts have consistently held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar
statutory claims, including civil theft claims. See Ferris v. Location 3 Corp., 2011 WI App 134,
¶¶ 12–13, 337 Wis. 2d 155, 804 N.W.2d 822; H.A. Friend & Co. v. Prof. Stationery, Inc., 2006
WI App 141, ¶¶ 14–17, 294 Wis. 2d 754, 720 N.W.2d 96. So the economic loss doctrine does
not apply here.
4
Defendants also argue that § 943.20(1)(b) applies only to “trustee-like” perpetrators,
citing the court’s recent decision in Wisconsin Masons Health Care Fund v. Sid’s Sealants, LLC,
No. 17-cv-28, 2017 WL 3835343, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2017). It’s true that
§ 943.20(1)(b) “targets ‘those who are entrusted with the property of another and who retain
or use that property in a way that does not comport with the owner’s wishes.’” Id. (quoting
Aslanukov v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 426 F. Supp. 2d 888, 893 (W.D. Wis. 2006)).
But that’s exactly the situation alleged here: CM agreed to keep pianos associated with sales
under contract or purchase order in the gallery and maintain insurance on them and to send
the sales proceeds to PGM. Likewise, CM agreed to send to PGM the sales proceeds from any
floor-plan-inventory pianos sold before CM obtained the GE release. As for acts of civil theft
alleged to have occurred before the agreement’s effective date, Garber and Galla were PGM’s
employees—precisely the kind of relationship contemplated in § 943.20(1)(b). So the court
will not dismiss PGM’s civil theft claim.
B. Trade name and trademark infringement
PGM alleges that CM infringed its trade names, in violation of Wisconsin common law,
and its trademarks, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), by using the marks
licensed in the agreement after PGM ordered it to cease, as allowed by the agreement.
To state claims for trade name and trademark infringement, PGM must allege, among
other things, that CM’s use of a mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers. See First
Wis. Nat’l Bank of Milwaukee v. Wichman, 85 Wis. 2d 54, 270 N.W.2d 168, 172–73 (1978); 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendants contend that “there is simply no likelihood of confusion here,”
therefore PGM fails to state infringement claims. Dkt. 11, at 8. But likelihood of confusion is
a question of fact. Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. L.A. Rams Football Co., 188 F.3d 427, 436 (7th Cir.
5
1999). “In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, [courts] consider[] seven
factors, weighing their relative importance on a case-by-case basis.” Id. PGM alleges that CM
used PGM’s exact marks in the same location and for the same products that PGM used the
marks. Those allegations fulfill several factors, and they are sufficient at the pleading stage. A
deeper analysis of likelihood of confusion must wait until the facts are developed.
Defendants also argue that PGM could not revoke the license to use the marks under
the terms of the agreement, and therefore CM could not have infringed these marks. It’s hard
to see how CM could be entitled to continued use of the licensed marks if it is in breach of the
agreement. But the parties’ arguments on this issue are underdeveloped, and the terms of the
agreement concerning the termination of the license are not entirely clear. Defendants concede
that this may be “an issue for another day,” Dkt. 11, at 7, and the court agrees. So the court
will not dismiss PGM’s trade name and trademark infringement claims.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants Create Music, LLC, Benjamin Garber, and Debra
Galla’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff Piano Gallery Madison,
LLC’s claim under Wis. Stat. § 100.18 is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Entered February 6, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
6
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?