Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00863/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00863-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IBRAHIM NASSER; SERIOUS 

SCENTS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JULIUS SAMMANN LTD. DBA 

LITTLE TREE DBA CARFRESHNER CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; 

DENYING MOTION FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT; DENYING 

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO FIRST-TO-FILE RULE 

[ECF NOS. 6, 9, 11] 

Defendant Car-Freshner Corporation, erroneously sued as Julius Samann 

Ltd. dba Little Tree dba Car-Freshner Corporation (“Car-Freshner”), moves to 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6), or alternatively for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(e). (ECF No. 11.) Defendant Energizer Brands II LLC (“Energizer”) moves to 

dismiss the complaint pursuant to the first-to-file rule. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Car-Freshner’s motion to dismiss, 

deny its alternative motion for more definite statement as moot, and deny 

Energizer’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. 

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

I. BACKGROUND

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs Ibrahim Nasser (“Nasser”) and Serious Scents, 

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against defendants Car-Freshner, Energizer, 

and Nature’s Appeal Manufacturing Corporation dba Stink Grenade (“Nature’s 

Appeal”) (collective, “Defendants”). The action arises from Defendants’ alleged 

use of a “stolen image design and concept” for hand-grenade-shaped air 

fresheners that come “in [an] array of fanciful colors and pleasant scents,” see

Compl. at 12, 14, and purports to assert claims for trademark infringement, 

copyright infringement, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq., and other violations of federal law, see

Compl. at 1, 2-3. 

On May 19, 2017, Energizer filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint 

pursuant to the first-to-file rule, a rule of federal comity that “permits a court to 

decline jurisdiction when a complaint involving the same issues has already been 

filed in another district.” See Energizer II’s Mot. (ECF No. 6-1) at 6 (quoting 

Pacesetter Sys., Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

Energizer contends it should be dismissed from this action because on March 10, 

2017, it filed an action against Plaintiffs in federal court in the Eastern District of 

Missouri in which it asserts claims that it maintains are substantially similar to the 

ones Plaintiffs are pursuing here. 

On May 23, 2017, Car-Freshner filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or alternatively, for more 

definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e).1 

Nasser has filed oppositions to both motions. (ECF Nos. 16, 22).

 

1

 Plaintiffs have not filed proofs of service of the summons and complaint, and Nature’s Appeal has not made an 

appearance, so it is unclear whether Nature’s Appeal has been served. 

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Car-Freshner contends that Plaintiffs’ complaint is too poorly pled to state a 

claim. The Court agrees and will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. 

The pleading defects Car-Freshner identifies fall within the scope of Rules

8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that 

a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the pleadings of 

pro se plaintiffs are liberally construed, the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8

apply to self-represented and represented plaintiffs alike. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995); Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n. 11 (2d Cir. 

2004). Complaints that are too confusing and prolix to “perform the essential 

functions of a compliant” are subject to dismissal under Rule 8(a). See, e.g., 

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding a Rule 8(a) 

dismissal of a complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, 

and largely irrelevant”); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 

1985) (upholding a Rule 8(a) dismissal of a complaint that was confusing and 

conclusory). 

Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to adhere to the Rule 8(a) pleading requirements in 

several ways. In general, it is confusing, unfocused, argumentative, and scattered 

with irrelevant material, including unnecessary aspersions on Defendants’ 

attorneys. See Compl. at 9, 10 (“The opposition attorney’s [sic] will demand that 

each and every legal nuance must be played out in exacting detail[;]” “This Court 

will hear the opposition attorneys seeming like legal mashed cats.”). Also, 

although the cover page lists a number of claims that Plaintiffs intend to assert, the 

body of the complaint does not state each claim individually, and it lacks simple, 

concise and direct statements setting forth the alleged wrongdoing of each 

defendant in support of any of the intended claims. See Nevijel v. North Coast Life 

Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 1981) (approving district court’s dismissal 

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

under Rule 8(a) of a complaint for failure to assert “a short, simple, concise and 

direct statement respecting the alleged wrongdoing of each appellee”). The 

complaint also impermissibly groups all of the defendants together. See Adobe 

Sys. Inc. v. Blue Source Grp., Inc., No. 14-CV-02147-LHK, 2015 WL 5118509, at 

*10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“As a general rule, when a pleading fails ‘to allege 

what role each Defendant played in the harm,’ this ‘makes it exceedingly difficult 

... for individual Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations.”). To the limited 

extent Plaintiffs refer to a particular defendant, the references are ambiguous and 

confusing. See Compl. at 12 (referring to “defendant king of air fresheners” and 

“Defendant Tree Company”). The allegations addressing Plaintiffs are similarly

deficient. The body of the complaint refers almost exclusively to Nasser, making 

it unclear which claims are being asserted on behalf of Serious Scents, or what 

type of entity Serious Scents is. For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ complaint falls 

short of the requirements of Rule 8(a). See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180 (“Something 

labeled a complaint but ... without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom 

plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a 

complaint.”) 

Dismissal is also warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint fails 

to state a plausible claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a 

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). Allegations that amount to no more than legal conclusions or bare 

assertions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 679, 680-81. Here, 

Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to show, through well-pleaded factual allegations, how the 

elements of the laws underlying their claims were violated by defendants. The 

most frequently-discussed claim in the complaint is the claim for trademark 

violation, but the allegations in support of this claim are no more than bare 

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

assertions and legal conclusions. See Compl. at 14 (“The defendants at that 

moment in time made a conscious decision to mass market a stolen image and 

concept belonging to Mr. Nasser...”), 15 (“The defendants with purposeful intent 

actually cause the theft of the protections of a trademark and copyright by causing 

confusion in the marketplace.”). 

Therefore, the Court will grant Car-Freshner’s motion to dismiss the 

complaint for failure to state a claim. Because the defects in the complaint apply 

equally to all Defendants, the complaint will be dismissed in its entirety. CarFreshner’s alternative request for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) will 

be denied as moot. 2

Dismissal will be with leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend “shall be freely 

given when justice so requires” and granted “with extreme liberality”). If Plaintiffs 

file an amended complaint, they should take note that they must also comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), which requires that a party “state its claims 

in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

III. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FIRST-TO-FILE RULE

A district court has discretion to dismiss, stay, or transfer a case pursuant to 

the first-to-file rule. Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 94-95. Determining whether the firstto-file rule applies requires the court to analyze three factors: (1) chronology of the 

actions, (2) similarity of the parties, and (3) similarity of the issues. Gunnar Optiks, 

LLC v. Mad Panda, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-1938 BTM(KSC), 2015 WL 1013775, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015). Evaluation of the second and third factors requires the 

court to consider whether the claims and parties in each case are “substantially 

 

2

 In ruling on this motion, the Court did not rely on Car-Freshner’s request for judicial notice (“RJN”) submitted 

with its reply brief, and therefore denies the RJN as irrelevant.

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Here, Plaintiffs have not yet stated a viable claim for relief. It would be 

premature for the Court to try to determine whether this action involves 

“substantially similar” claims and parties as the ones involved in the Missouri case, 

since it is not certain which, if any, of Plaintiffs’ claims will survive, or against which 

Defendants they will be asserted. Accordingly, the Court will deny Energizer’s 

motion without prejudice. 

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULES

The Court notes that in the short time this action has been pending, Plaintiffs 

have developed a pattern of violating the Local Rules.

Nasser filed both of his opposition briefs late, in violation of this District’s 

Local Civil Rule 7.1.e.2, which provides that opposition briefs must be filed “not 

later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” CivLR 7.1.e.2. 

The Court accepted the noncompliant briefs, but had to move the hearing dates 

on both motions to give Energizer and Car-Freshner sufficient time to reply. See

ECF Nos. 17, 23. 

Plaintiff thereafter submitted several more pleadings, including a motion for 

leave to amend, which was submitted on June 30, 2017, without first requesting a 

hearing date from chambers, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7.1.b; a “Response” 

brief submitted on July 5, 2017, which is essentially a surreply brief, in violation of 

this Court’s Civil Chambers Rules providing that surreplies may not be filed 

without leave of court, see Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Civ. Chambers R. at 2, 

“Sur-replies” (Feb. 24, 2015); a proof of service of the surreply brief submitted on 

July 6, 2017; a documented titled “Judicial Notice” indicating Plaintiffs had 

completed drafting a First Amended Complaint, which was submitted on July 27, 

2017; and a First Amended Complaint, which was submitted prematurely on 

August 7, 2017, before the Court granted leave to amend. 

Since the motion to amend, surreply (including the proof of service of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

surreply), and request for judicial notice were unnecessary to the Court’s decision, 

there is no prejudice to Defendants in accepting them, so they will be accepted

under separate order. 

Because Plaintiffs submitted the First Amended Complaint prematurely and 

without the benefit of this Court’s order, it will be rejected so that Plaintiffs can 

determine whether it needs to be modified based on the discussion above. 

Plaintiffs may re-submit a First Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth

below. 

Although Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they must nevertheless comply 

with the applicable rules of civil procedure. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 

govern other litigants.”). If Plaintiffs file a First Amended Complaint and proceed 

with this action, they will need to familiarize themselves with and make a concerted 

effort to comply with the Local Rules of this District as well as this Court’s Civil 

Chambers Rules, both of which are available online. See CivLR, available at: 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/Lists/Rules/Attachments/92/Local%20Rule

s%202016%20v1.pdf; Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Civ. Chambers R., available at: 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/Lists/Rules/Attachments/12/Moskowitz%20

Civil%20Chambers%20Rules.pdf. Failure to follow the rules of procedure in the 

future may lead to further rejection of noncompliant filings. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Car-Freshner’s 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, DENIES Car-Freshner’s alternative 

motion for more definite statement as moot, and DENIES Energizer’s motion to 

dismiss without prejudice.

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

17-cv-0863-BTM-MDD 

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

Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file and 

serve a First Amended Complaint on or before September 8, 2017. If Plaintiffs fail 

to do so, the Court will close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00863-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8