Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00638/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00638-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

11cv638-JAH (KSC)

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

DR. GREENS, INC., a California 

Corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECTRUM LABORATORIES, LLC, an 

Ohio limited liability company

Defendant.

Case No.: 11cv638-JAH (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) RESETTING TELEPHONIC 

HEARING;

(2) AMENDING THE ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

On January 21, 2020, Defendant/Counterclaimant Spectrum Laboratories, LLC 

(Spectrum) moved this Court to issue an Order To Show Cause why Defendants should 

not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s February 23, 2018, Order entered on the 

record after the jury returned a verdict in favor of Spectrum in this case. See Doc. No. 334, 

at 8-9. 

Plaintiff seeks relief in its motion to hold “Gary Eastman, (personally and his law firm), 

AR Acquisitions, Pacific Inventory Services, LLC, and any other entity to which Mr. 

Eastman, Mr. Green, or Dr. Greens have transferred assets, liable for the entire judgment 

amount awarded by the jury and attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court in this case.” See

Case 3:11-cv-00638-JAH-KSC Document 394 Filed 05/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

11cv638-JAH (KSC)

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

Doc. 366 at 6. The relief sought by Plaintiff is civil in nature—to preserve Defendants’ 

assets to ensure they are available to satisfy the jury’s verdict and final judgement. As such, 

any relief resulting from a finding of contempt will be civil in nature. See Kirkland v. 

Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If its purpose is to punish a past 

violation of a court order the contempt is criminal. If its purpose is remedial, i.e. to 

compensate for the costs of the contemptuous conduct or to coerce future compliance with 

the court's order, the contempt order is civil.”)

In its pleadings, Spectrum cited to the February 23, 2018 Order. The OSC was issued 

specifically as to that Order. Also, in its pleadings and during oral argument at the February 

20, 2020, hearing, Plaintiff directed the Court’s attention to another incident on February 

26, 2018, occurring during a post-verdict telephonic status conference, during which Mr. 

Eastman made a representation to Plaintiff’s counsel and this Court. These representations 

made during this incident are more than relevant in light of the facts and circumstances 

occurring up to and after the return of the jury’s verdict.

Having considered the record, the pleadings, arguments of counsel, and the Court’s 

statutory and inherent authority to ensure the proper administration of justice, this Court 

finds it appropriate to amend the OSC as follows:

1. Counter-Defendants and attorney Gary Eastman shall Show Cause why Dr. 

Greens, Matthew Green, and/or attorney Gary Eastman should not be held in 

contempt for violating the Court’s February 23, 2018, Order barring Dr. 

Greens and Matthew Green “from transferring any accounts held by Dr. 

Greens... [other than] routine business expenses that [Mr. Green] has been 

paying to keep [his] business going... until further Order of the Court.” See

Doc. No. 334, at 8-9.

Case 3:11-cv-00638-JAH-KSC Document 394 Filed 05/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

11cv638-JAH (KSC)

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. Counter-Defendants and attorney Gary Eastman shall Show Cause why Dr.

Greens, Matthew Green, and/or attorney Gary Eastman should not be held in

contempt:

a. For making the following representation, within the context of the

matter discussed, to opposing counsel and the Court: “I don’t think that the 

Court’s concern about, you know, wholesale transmissions of large sums of 

money or assets from one group to another is needed, to the extent they exist. 

But with regard to a limited stay on bulk transfers, I – we have no challenge 

to that.” See Doc. No. 335 at 9 (emphasis added); and 

b. For acting deliberately and with knowledge that the statement or

representation was untrue when made and the statement or representation was 

material to the activities and decisions of opposing counsel and/or the Court, 

that is, it had a natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing 

opposing counsel’s actions and decisions and/or the Court’s actions relating 

to the issue of restraining assets, thereby causing opposing counsel to forego 

arguments to strengthen its motion for pre-judgement restraints and 

precluding the Court from expounding upon or clarifying its initial order of 

restraint.

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The hearing set for Thursday, May 14, 2020, is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendants Dr. Greens and Matthew Green shall respond

to the additional allegation no later than May 18, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

3. Attorney Gary Eastman shall respond to the additional allegation no later than

May 18, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

4. Defendant/Counterclaimant Spectrum Laboratories may reply by May 22, 2020,

6:00 p.m. 

Case 3:11-cv-00638-JAH-KSC Document 394 Filed 05/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

11cv638-JAH (KSC)

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

5. A telephonic hearing will be held on May 29, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., to determine 

whether or to what extent discovery should be ordered and/or to set an evidentiary 

hearing date.

6. Chambers’ staff will contact the parties prior to the hearing date with further 

instructions relating to the telephone conference. 

7. The ex parte motion to continue the hearing, doc. no. 389, 392, is DENIED as

MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 12, 2020

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00638-JAH-KSC Document 394 Filed 05/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4