Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02540/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02540-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINA CHAMPION-CAIN, an

individual; LUV SURF, LP, a

California limited partnership; ANI

COMMERCIAL CA I, LLC, a

California limited liability company;

and ANI COMMERCIAL CA II, LP, a

California limited partnership,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

ORDER ON EX PARTE

APPLICATIONS

[ECF Nos. 37, 38, 41]

v.

BRIAN MACDONALD, an

individual; LOVESURF, INC., a

Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Since filing their reply brief supporting their preliminary injunction motion on

April 20, 2015, Plaintiffs have filed three ex parte applications relating to the pending

preliminary injunction motion. 

On May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Submit

New Evidence in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 37.) 

Defendants filed a response on June 2, 2015. (ECF No. 42.)

On May 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order Permitting Oral

Argument and Limited Witness Testimony on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

- 1 - 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

Injunction. (ECF No. 38.) Defendants filed a response on June 3, 2015. (ECF No.

43.)

Finally, on June 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to

Submit Additional Evidence in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF

No. 41.) Defendants filed their opposition on June 3, 2015. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiffs

filed a reply on June 11, 2015. (ECF No. 48.)

DISCUSSION

A. New Evidence

In their May 22, 2015 and June 2, 2015 applications, Plaintiffs seek leave to

submit new evidence showing likelihood of irreparable harm, which is a required

element for obtaining a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 37 at 2; ECF No. 41 at 2-3.) 

Specifically, Plaintiffs wish to submit the following:

1. An email, dated May 15, 2015, from Nordstrom informing a

representative for Plaintiffs that Nordstrom will stop selling Plaintiffs’

merchandise (Ex. A, ECF No. 37) as a result of a cease and desist letter

sent by Defendants (Ex. B, ECF No. 37).

2. An email, dated May 13, 2015, from Defendant Brian MacDonald to the

organizer of the “Sisters of the Sea” female surf competition asking that

she not publish Luv Surf’s logo or brand on “Sisters of the Sea”

marketing materials because they were stolen. (Ex. A, ECF No. 41.)

3. An email, dated May 27, 2015, from Defendant Brian MacDonald to one

of Plaintiffs’ brand ambassadors encouraging her not to do business with

Plaintiffs because Luv Surf is “a[n] embarrassing copy of LOVESURF.” 

(Ex. B, ECF No. 41.)

4. Screenshots of Defendants’ website wherein Defendants discuss the

Nordstrom issue and cite to other content showing that Luv Surf is a “ripoff brand.” (Ex. C, ECF No. 41.)

///

- 2 - 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

Defendants object to this evidence on various grounds, including that

(1) Defendants claim priority on the mark, so it would be improper to prevent them

from competing for customers, (2) Defendants will suffer prejudice because they will

not have an opportunity to address this evidence before the hearing on the preliminary

injunction motion, (3) Plaintiffs cite no authority for their requests, (4) determinations

of the truth or falsity of Defendants’ speech must be made at trial, not as part of a

preliminary injunction determination, (5) Plaintiffs’ cannot show irreparable harm

anyway because of their long delay in bringing the preliminary injunction motion, and

(6) the evidence does not show a threat of future harm (and any existing harm can be

remedied through monetary damages). (ECF Nos. 43, 45.)

The Court finds the three emails, the cease and desist letter, and the screenshots

listed above to be directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable harm and will

consider themin relation to Plaintiffs’ pending preliminary injunction motion. District

courts have broad discretion to consider arguments first raised in a reply brief, Lane v.

Dept. of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Glenn K. Jackson, Inc.

v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2001)), and, given that Plaintiffs filed their

applications prior to the hearing, the Court believes it has discretion to consider the

new evidence. All three emails were sent well after Plaintiffs filed their reply brief, so

Plaintiffs could not have included them in their briefing on the motion. The

screenshots were taken by Chris Kramer, who filed a declaration supporting Plaintiffs’

application. (Kramer Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 41-1 at 3.) Though Mr. Kramer does not state

the date on which he took the screenshots, the exhibits themselves contain content

describing events that took place in June of 2015, so they appear to be recent as well. 

(See id.; Ex. C, ECF No. 41.) Additionally, the exhibits were attached to Plaintiffs’ ex

parte applications, so Defendants had the opportunity to review them and present their

arguments in their opposition briefs. (See ECF Nos. 42, 43, 45.) Further, in order to

prevent prejudice to Defendants, the Court also will allow Defendants the opportunity

to address this evidence at the hearing. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483

- 3 - 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

(9th Cir. 1996) (a court admitting argumentssubmitted for the first time in a reply brief

should protect the non-moving party against unfair surprises by allowing it an

opportunity to respond); Lewis v. Gotham Ins. Co., No. 09CV252 L (POR), 2009 WL

3698028, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) (when considering new arguments raised in a

reply brief, the court should either “provide oral argument to the non-moving party, or

allow the non-moving party to file a sur-reply”). 

B. Testimony

In Plaintiffs’ May 27, 2015 application, Plaintiffs request oral argument on their

preliminary injunction motion and the opportunity to offer “percipient / expert

testimony.” (ECF No. 38.) It appearsthe testimony they seek to present is that of their

forensic analyst, Peter Garza. (Id.) Defendants object to Mr. Garza providing any

testimony. (ECF No. 43.)

The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on

May 18, 2015. However, Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their request to

present expert testimony. Moreover, given the parties’ ongoing dispute regarding

whether Plaintiffs’ filing of Mr. Garza’s declaration violated the parties’ protective

order or their separate agreement regarding his review of Defendants’ computer files,

the Court finds it inappropriate to allow the opportunity for further disclosures at this

time. Plaintiffs’ request for witness testimony, therefore, is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Submit New Evidence in

Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 37) is

GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Order Permitting Oral Argument and

Limited Witness Testimony on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will

hear oral argument by counsel on June 18, 2015, and DENIED to the

- 4 - 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

extent Plaintiffs seek permission to present witness testimony.

3. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence

in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 41) is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5