Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00282/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00282-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Attorney Yellow Pages.Com, L.L.C., an

Arizona limited liability company and

James Novak, an individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Advice Company, a California

corporation, 

Defendant. 

Advice Company, a California

Corporation,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Attorney Yellow Pages.Com, L.L.C., an

Arizona limited liability company,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0282-PHX-LOA

ORDER

After review and consideration of the parties’ briefings on Plaintiffs’ pending

dispositive Motion, docket # 35, including the parties’ supplemental briefs on the issue of

whether collateral estoppel precludes Defendant Advice Company from relitigating the

issues alleged in Counts 1 and 2 of its Counterclaim, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.

The Court concludes that (1) regarding whether the Northern District of

Case 2:09-cv-00282-LOA Document 49 Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Second Restatement of Judgments sets forth the general rule of issue preclusion

as follows: 

When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and

final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the

determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties,

whether on the same or a different claim. 

Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982); also see, Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc.

v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244 (3rd Cir. 2006).

- 2 -

California had jurisdiction to entertain Advice Company’s lawsuit in that forum against

Plaintiffs, the issue of whether Plaintiffs knew they were causing harm in California when

they allegedly committed their acts of infringement is not identical to the issue of whether

Plaintiffs knew of Defendant Advice Company’s trademark when Plaintiffs adopted their

trademark, and (2) Plaintiffs’ prior knowledge of Defendant Advice Company’s trademark

when Plaintiffs adopted their trademark was not essential to the California court’s judgment

that it lacked jurisdiction over Attorney Yellow Pages.Com, L.L.C., an Arizona limited

liability company and James Novak. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318,

1320-21 (9th Cir. 1992); Alberto-Culver Co. v. Trevive, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 1004 (C.D. Cal.

2002) (citing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1985) (en

banc)); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).1

 Defendant Advice Company is

entitled to a full and fair opportunity in the Arizona litigation to create a question of fact of

Plaintiffs’ prior knowledge, if any, in this regard. Because the parties’ briefings are adequate

and oral argument would not aid the Court, the Court will also deny Plaintiffs’ request for

oral argument. Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.

1999).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, or

alternatively, Motion to Strike Counts 1 and 2 of Advice Company’s Counterclaim, docket

# 35, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is

Case 2:09-cv-00282-LOA Document 49 Filed 06/29/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

DENIED.

DATED this 29th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00282-LOA Document 49 Filed 06/29/09 Page 3 of 3