Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02135/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02135-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sanford H. Roth, M.D., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc., et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2135-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 94),

plaintiffs' response (doc. 102), and defendants' reply (doc. 106). We also have before us

plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment (doc. 92),

defendants' response (doc. 96), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 98).

Defendants Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc. and Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.

(collectively "Naturally Vitamin") seek summary judgment on Count III (breach of implied

contract), Count IV (misrepresentation), Count V (common law right of publicity), and Count

VI (Lanham Act). 

I

In Count III of the complaint, Roth alleges an implied contract was formed when

Naturally Vitamin induced him to participate in a video interview for use in the Arthritis

Case 2:04-cv-02135-FJM Document 108 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Foundation's "All About Arthritis" televent in exchange for Naturally Vitamin's promise to

make a $10,000 contribution to the Arthritis Foundation. Roth participated in the interview,

but alleges that Naturally Vitamin breached the implied contract when it not only failed to

make the contribution, but subsequently used the video interview for commercial purposes

without his permission. Roth contends that he would ordinarily have charged $10,000 for

performing the interview, permitting a one-time broadcast. He alleges damages related to

the value of his participation in the video interview, as well as the value of the subsequent

unauthorized use of the video. Roth Response at 5. 

Because material issues of fact exist relating to damages, we deny the motion for

summary judgment on Count III. At trial, Roth's Count III damages claim will be limited by

his clarification that his claim is not based on loss of income opportunity, id., and further by

our conclusion that any potential claim for "damage to reputation" is a tort remedy not

recoverable under this contract claim. 

II

Naturally Vitamin asserts that Count IV should be dismissed because Roth failed to

allege facts sufficient to support a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Roth now concedes

this point, but argues that Count IV alternatively sets forth a claim for negligence. We reject

Roth's attempt to amend the complaint at this late date. Count IV expressly states a claim for

negligent misrepresentation, not negligence. It contains no allegation that Naturally Vitamin

owed a duty to Roth, and therefore cannot reasonably be construed as a negligence claim.

Naturally Vitamin's motion for summary judgment on Count IV is granted.

III

Naturally Vitamin also contends that Roth failed to disclose any evidence of damages

related to the right of publicity and Lanham Act claims in Counts V and VI, respectively, and

therefore failed to establish an essential element of these claims. In particular, Naturally

Vitamin contends that Roth's claims for lost consulting income and damage to his reputation

are merely speculative, and therefore should be dismissed. In opposition to the motion, Roth

identifies six companies that have allegedly stopped engaging his services as a result of

Case 2:04-cv-02135-FJM Document 108 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Naturally Vitamin's wrongful acts. Roth Affidavit ¶ 1. Naturally Vitamin contends that

Roth's affidavit directly contradicts his earlier deposition testimony that he had no personal

knowledge of lost consulting opportunities. 

Issues of fact remain as to what damages, if any, Roth suffered as a result of Naturally

Vitamin's actions. These issues are appropriately resolved at trial. Therefore, Naturally

Vitamin's motion for summary judgment on Counts V and VI is denied.

IV

Finally, Roth moves for leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment

on Count I of the complaint. In his original motion for summary judgment (doc. 40), Roth

alleged that Naturally Vitamin breached the Consulting Agreement by failing to compensate

him for work he performed on three different projects. With respect to damages, Roth

alleged that he spent a total of 40 hours on these projects, at a rate of $400 per hour, for a

total amount due of $16,000. He acknowledged, however, that a dispute existed as to

whether he received partial compensation of $3,200 for the Protocol and Budget project.

Naturally Vitamin did not dispute the amount of damages, but merely contested liability. We

granted Roth's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, but denied summary

judgment with respect to damages, concluding that a material issue of fact remained "as to

whether Roth has been partially compensated for work performed in relation to the Protocol

and Budget." Order at 3-4. 

Roth now abandons his claim related to this element of damages. In response,

Naturally Vitamin argues for the first time that, notwithstanding Roth's concession, additional

issues of fact remain regarding damages arising from Count I. These arguments were not

presented in response to Roth's motion for summary judgment as required by Rule 56(e),

Fed. R. Civ. P., and they will not be considered now. Because there is no longer any material

issue of fact relating to damages in Count I, we grant summary judgment in favor of Roth in

the amount of $12,800. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). We deny as moot Roth's motion for leave

to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment (doc. 94). 

Case 2:04-cv-02135-FJM Document 108 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

V

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Naturally Vitamin's motion for summary

judgment on Count IV, and DENYING the motion on Counts III, V, and VI (doc. 94). IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot Roth's motion for leave to file a

supplemental motion for summary judgment (doc. 92). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

GRANTING summary judgment in favor of Roth on Count I in the amount of $12,800.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02135-FJM Document 108 Filed 08/16/06 Page 4 of 4