Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01777/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01777-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1777

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLUID RX, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1777-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

[Dkt. nos. 33, 34]

vs.

GARY W. ROY, an individual, GARY W.

ROY, doing business as GWR

SPECIALITY AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS;

ALDOSOFT ENGINEERING, a company of

unknown origin,

Defendants.

__________________________________

GARY W. ROY, an individual, and GARY

W. ROY, doing business as GWR

SPECIALTY AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS,

Counter-Claimants,

vs.

FLUID R. INC., a Delaware corporation;

RON SCHORNSTEIN, an individual; and

RON McELROY, an individual,

Counter-Defendants.

On October 13, 2006, Defendant Gary Roy (“Roy”) filed a counterclaim against

Plaintiff FluidRx and two of its principals, Ron Schornstein (“Schornstein”) and Ron McElroy

(“McElroy”). Schornstein and McElroy moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 70 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1777

12(b)(4), contending Roy had not properly served them and therefore had not acquired

personal jurisdiction over them. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Roy, apparently

acquiescing to Schornstein’s and McElroy’s objections regarding his first attempted service

and desiring to cure defects in service, obtained summonses for his counterclaim and filed

certificates of service on Schornstein and McElroy. 

Schornstein and McElroy thereafter filed answers to the counterclaim. Their answers

did not raise the issue of sufficiency of service, nor have they challenged either the

sufficiency of Roy’s second attempt at service or personal jurisdiction. The Court construes

their answers as recognizing the validity of Roy’s second attempt at service. Even if the

Court did not draw this inference, however, Schornstein and McElroy would have waived

their Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(4) challenges. While they might have successfully challenged

Roy’s first attempt at service, under Rule 12(h)(1) they waived their challenge to his second

attempt by not challenging it by either a Rule 12(b) motion or raising it in their answer.

Counter-Defendants’ Schornstein’s and McElroy’s motion to dismiss is therefore

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 70 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2