Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grooms v. Legge

July 8, 2009

JAMES GROOMS; BRYCEMARIE PHELAN; KNUCKLE, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOHN LEGGE; GWEN LEGGE; KNUKLE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ARTILLERY DISTRIBUTION, AN ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN; SEAN MYERS; DEVIN MERCADO; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

[Doc. Nos. 60, 61.]

In this unfair competition action, Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, move for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e).*fn1 (Doc. Nos. 60, 61.) Having considered the parties' submissions,, the Court DENIES Defendants' motions for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts of this case are well known to the parties and the Court and need not be repeated herein. On March 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting fifteen claims for relief:

(1) unfair competition and false designation under 15 U.S.C. §1125; (2) cybersquatting, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (3) violations of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, 17500; (4) unfair competition under California's common law; (5) trademark and trade name infringement; (6) conversion; (7) fraud; (8) intentional interference with prospective business advantage; (9) intentional interference with economic relationships; (10) defamation; (11) breach of oral/implied contract; (12) civil conspiracy; (13) declaratory relief; (14) accounting; and (15) constructive trust/ equitable lien.

On March 17, 2009, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, restraining Defendants from using the Knukle Inc. mark. (Doc. No. 14.) On April 8, 2009, the Court issued a preliminary injunction.(Doc. No. 51.) On May 22, 2009, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer the action. (Doc. No. 59.)

Presently, Defendants move to dismiss for a failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In the alternative, Defendants move for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), asserting they cannot reasonably prepare a response due to ambiguities in the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition, but Defendants did not file a timely reply. The motion is amenable to disposition without oral argument. Local Civil Rule 7.1.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544 (2007). The court's review is limited to the contents of the complaint and it must accept all factual allegations pled in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). Notwithstanding this deference, it is improper for a court to assume "the [plaintiff] can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged." Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.