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.

Collegesource, Inc., A California Corporation v. Academyone

April 15, 2013

COLLEGESOURCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ACADEMYONE, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY [Dkt. No. 204.]

Before the Court are numerous motion filed by both Plaintiff and Defendant. On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 172.) On November 28, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of claim preclusion. (Dkt. No. 186.) Concurrently, Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay the case; and motion to refer the summary judgment motion to Magistrate Judge Dembin for report and recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 204, 207.) Because the related case filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is currently on appeal with the Third Circuit, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a stay.

Background

On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff CollegeSource filed this action against Defendant AcademyOne, alleging six causes of action for: (1) violation of the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030; (2) violation of the California Computer Crimes Act, California Penal Code section 502; (3) breach of contract; (4) misappropriation; (5) unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200; and (6) unjust enrichment. (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 3, 2008, AcademyOne filed a motion to dismiss CollegeSource's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Dkt. No. 8.) On February 23, 2009, the Court denied AcademyOne's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling it after additional jurisdictional discovery had been conducted. (Dkt. No. 46.) On June 19, 2009, CollegeSource amended its complaint, adding causes of action for trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (Dkt. No. 61.) On July 27, 2009, AcademyOne again filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer venue. (Dkt. No. 66.) On August 24, 2009, the Court granted AcademyOne's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 93.) On September 21, 2009, CollegeSource filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 99.) On August 8, 2011, the Ninth Circuit determined that AcademyOne is subject to personal jurisdiction in California. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1080 (9th Cir. 2011). On October 21, 2011, CollegeSource filed a second amended complaint, adding causes of action for false advertising in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and trademark invalidity. (Dkt. No. 115.)

During the pendency of the Ninth Circuit appeal, on July 20, 2010, CollegeSource filed a separate complaint against AcademyOne in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., No. 10-CV-3542 (E.D. Pa., filed July 20, 2010) ("the Pennsylvania Action"). In the Pennsylvania Action, CollegeSource asserted claims, among others, for: (1) violation of the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114; (5) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (6) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (7) declaration of trademark invalidity due to fraud on U.S.P.T.O.

On November 8, 2011, CollegeSource filed a motion in this case to enjoin the proceedings in the Pennsylvania Action. (Dkt. No. 119.) On December 8, 2011, the Court denied the motion to enjoin the Pennsylvania Action because that case was further along in the proceedings. (Dkt. No. 127.)

The Pennsylvania court also denied a similar request to stay or transfer its action. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 10-3542, 2011 WL 5127813 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2011). On December 9, 2011, CollegeSource appealed the Court's denial of an injunction. (Dkt. No. 128.) On November 22, 2011, AcademyOne filed a motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or stay the case until the Pennsylvania Action is complete. (Dkt. No. 121.) On December 15, 2011, CollegeSource filed an ex parte application to enjoin the Pennsylvania Action pending its appeal. (Dkt. No. 134.) On December 30, 2011, the Court granted AcademyOne's motion to stay the case for six months and denied CollegeSource's motion to enjoin the Pennsylvania Action pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 137.) On January 3, 2012, CollegeSource appealed the Court's denial of an injunction pending appeal and its grant of a stay. (Dkt. No. 138.) On January 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals as moot. (Dkt. No. 192.)

While the present action was stayed, the parties proceeded in the Pennsylvania Action. On February 27, 2012, AcademyOne filed a motion for summary judgment on all of CollegeSource's claims. (Pennsylvania Action, 10cv3542-MAM, Dkt. No. 164.) AcademyOne also filed Daubert motions to preclude both of CollegeSource's expert witnesses. (Id., Dkt. Nos. 165-66.) The Pennsylvania court held a hearing on AcademyOne's motions on June 13, 2012. (Id., Dkt. No. 206.) On September 21, 2012, after the motion for summary judgment was fully briefed and after having had oral argument, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to supplement its opposition and conduct additional discovery. (Id., Dkt. No. 222.) On September 27, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's request. (Id. Dkt. No. 225.)

On October 25, 2012, the Court in the Pennsylvania Action granted Defendant AcademyOne's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. (Id., Dkt. No. 226.) Specifically, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims of (1) violation of the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114; (5) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (6) declaration of Trademark Invalidity due to fraud on U.S.P.T.O.; and (7) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (Id.) On November 2, 2012, CollegeSource filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit. (Id., Dkt. No. 228.)

On October 15, 2012, CollegeSource filed an amended motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 172.) AcademyOne filed an opposition on March 8, 2013. (Dkt. Nos 198, 227.) CollegeSource filed a reply on March 29, 2013. (Dkt. No. 217.)

On November 28, 2012, AcademyOne filed a motion for summary judgment based on res judicata. (Dkt. No. 186.) CollegeSource filed an opposition on March 8, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 202.) AcademyOne filed a reply on March 29, 2013. (Dkt. No. 211.)

On March 11, 2013, CollegeSource filed a motion to stay and a motion to refer summary judgment related motion to Magistrate Judge Dembin for report and recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 204, 207.) On April 5, 2013, AcademyOne filed an opposition to these motions. (Dkt Nos. 221, 222.) CollegeSource filed a reply on April 12, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 228, 229.)

Discussion

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court first addresses Plaintiff's motion ...


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.