Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02832/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02832-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pestube Systems, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

HomeTeam Pest Defense, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CIV 05-2832-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant HomeTeam Pest Defense LLC's ("Defendant" or

"HomeTeam") Motion to Vacate Remaining Case Deadlines and Stay Further Proceedings

Pending Resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction. (Dkt.#75-1). After reviewing the pleadings, the Court issues the following

Order. 

On January 12, 2007, Defendant filed the instant Motion and requested that the matter be

briefed on an expedited basis. The Court agreed with Defendant's rationale to address this

matter on an expedited basis and ordered an expedited briefing schedule with its Order on

January 17, 2007. (Dkt.#77). Both Plaintiff Pestube Systems, Inc., ("Plaintiff" or "Pestube")

and Defendant complied with the schedule with their response and reply respectively.

(Dkt.#'s 78, 81). In support of Defendant's Motion to vacate and stay, Defendant cites the

fact that it has filed a motion to dismiss challenging this Court's jurisdiction to address

Plaintiff's claims, including its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §

Case 2:05-cv-02832-MHM Document 82 Filed 01/30/07 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 -

1125(a). (Dkt.#73). Defendant contends that in interests of judicial economy and avoiding

unnecessary litigation costs, that a stay of the remaining discovery deadlines, including

Defendant's February 5, 2007, expert disclosure deadline, is appropriate. Defendant claims

that its position is supported by the fact that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a Lanham Act

claim. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has offered no evidence to indicate that Plaintiff "has

suffered a concrete, particularized, actual injury, fairly traceable to [Defendant's] alleged

misconduct, and likely to be redressed by a decision in [Plaintiff's] favor. (Dkt.#75-1, p.2).

Defendant contends that in such circumstances, that good cause exists to modify the Court's

Rule 16 Scheduling Order and to vacate and stay the pending Rule 16 deadlines. Defendant

cites the Court's attention to Orchid Biosciences Inc. v. St. Louis University, 198 F.R.D. 670

(S.D. Cal. 2001), which noted that the district courts have a broad discretion to stay

discovery in a case where a dispositive motion is pending. Id. at 672 (citing Date Disc, Inc.

v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

In opposition to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff contends that there is no basis to stay

discovery in this case due to Defendant's challenge to Plaintiff's standing to assert its Lanham

Act claim and asserts that Defendant is engaging in a delay tactic. Plaintiff further contends

that Defendant's challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction will fail for several

reasons, including that Plaintiff need not prove a competitive injury where a claim for

injunctive relief is asserted, such as here. See Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108

F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that "a competitor need not prove injury when suing

to enjoin conduct that violates section 43(a)."(citation omitted). In addition to injunctive

relief, Plaintiff contends that it will prove a concrete competitive injury as alleged in its

Amended Complaint before this Court alleging that "[a]s a direct and proximate consequence

of [Defendant's] conduct ... [Plaintiff] has been and is likely in the future to be damaged as

a result of [Defendant's] false ... descriptions and deceptions." (Second Amended Complaint,

Dkt.#36, ¶48). Lastly, Plaintiff also cites that there is another basis for subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court because of its false marking claim under 35 U.S.C. § 292. 

Case 2:05-cv-02832-MHM Document 82 Filed 01/30/07 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 -

In reviewing the arguments advanced above, the Court finds, in the exercise of its broad

discretion, that a stay of discovery at this stage of the litigation is unwarranted. The Court

is certainly aware that Defendant has challenged this Court's subject matter jurisdiction;

however, the Court will await the full briefing from the parties before making any type of

assessment of the merits of Defendant's motion to dismiss. It is clear from the papers, that

Defendant's basis for staying discovery is based upon the its position that it is apparent that

subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. For instance, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's

reliance on Southland Farms is misplaced as other Ninth Circuit authority rebuts the notion

of standing without the presence of a particularized competitive injury. (Defendant's Reply,

Dkt.#81, p.3). Such an issue requires the benefit of full briefing before making any type of

assessment of either party's position. The same can be said regarding Defendant's objection

to Plaintiff's allegations in its Amended Complaint in support of standing based upon a

competitive injury. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 48). The Court does not see the benefit of

staying the Rule 16 deadlines during the pendency of the Court's decision regarding the issue

of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Court will address shortly after the issue is fully

briefed. Should jurisdiction exist in this Court, this matter will then push forward to a proper

resolution on the merits, rather than further delay a resolution of this case pending since

September of 2005. (Dkt.#1). In sum, in considering the current posture of this case and the

arguments advanced by the parties with respect to a modification of the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order due to Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the circumstances of this

case do not warrant a stay. See Orchid Biosciences, 198 F.R.D. at 672 (stating that in

evaluating whether to grant a stay, "[a] case by case analyses is required, since the

determination will necessarily be fact specific and will depend on the particular

circumstances and posture of the case at issue."). 

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-02832-MHM Document 82 Filed 01/30/07 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Vacate Remaining Case

Deadlines and Stay Further Proceedings Pending Resolution of Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Dkt.#75-1).

DATED this 29th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02832-MHM Document 82 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 4