Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01895/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01895-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Market Studies, LLC, a limited liability

company

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Technical Analysis, Inc., a Washington

corporation

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01895-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand.

(Doc. 48). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

I. Background

On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff Market Studies, LLC filed a complaint against

Defendant Technical Analysis, Inc. in this Court alleging copyright infringement, unfair

competition, unjust enrichment, and trademark infringement. (Doc. 1) The original complaint

did not include a jury demand. Just over six months later, Plaintiff moved to amend its

complaint. In the proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff withdrew its copyright claim and

added a claim for improper interference with a business relationship. (Doc. 43 at 6). There

was no jury demand included in Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 28). After

the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint with a jury

demand included on April 10, 2012. (Doc. 45). Defendant now moves to strike the jury

Case 2:11-cv-01895-JAT Document 62 Filed 10/22/12 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 -

demand in the Amended Complaint as untimely. In response, Plaintiff argues that a jury trial

is appropriate because Plaintiff properly invoked its Constitutional right to a jury trial in its

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Answer to the Amended Complaint

was the last pleading filed, and Plaintiff had fourteen days thereafter to make a jury demand.

In addition, Plaintiff argues that its intentional interference with a business relationship

claim, which asserts that Plaintiff had a business expectancy that Defendant knew of and

improperly interfered with, and the first four counts included in its Amended Complaint

require evidence that was not necessary to prove the claims in the original complaint and

raise new causes of action that warrant a jury trial. 

II. Legal Standard

“On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by: (1)

serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—

not later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 38(b)(1). The filing of an amended complaint revives the right to a jury trial only if

that complaint raises new issues not raised by prior pleadings, and then only as to those

new claims. Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005);

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d) (“A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly

served and filed.”). “‘[T]he presentation of a new theory does not constitute the

presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted [as of right] under . . .

Rule 38(b).’ Rather, Rule 38(b) is concerned with issues of fact.” Id. (internal quotation

and citations omitted). Thus, if the issues in the original complaint and the amended

complaint turn on the same “matrix of facts,” then a party is not entitled to a trial by jury.

Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Summa Corp., 610 F.2d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 1979). 

Further, a district court has discretion to order a jury trial on a motion by a party

who has not filed a timely demand for one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). This discretion is

narrow and does not permit a court to grant relief when the failure to make a jury demand

is the result of oversight or inadvertence. Lewis v. Time, Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 556-57 (9th

Cir. 1983); see Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668, 675 (9th Cir.

Case 2:11-cv-01895-JAT Document 62 Filed 10/22/12 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 -

1975) (although relief under the rule is in the discretion of the district court, relief should

rarely be granted in default of a proper request for it).

III. Analysis

The main dispute between the Parties is whether Plaintiff’s newly-added intentional

interference with a business relationship claim and Plaintiff’s original trademark

infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims arise from the same matrix

of facts.

Plaintiff’s original claims were copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, unfair

competition, and trademark infringement. The copyright infringement and unjust enrichment

claims were based upon Defendant’s willful and unlicensed use of computer code and

intangible property in which Plaintiff had a protected interest. Plaintiff alleged losses on

these claims in the form of damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill, and lost profits that

have allegedly been diverted from Plaintiff to Defendant. Similarly, the unfair competition

claim is predicated on the same allegations of conduct, and Plaintiff argues that these actions

could potentially result in the mistaken idea amongst customers, potential customers, and the

public that Defendant’s goods and services are affiliated with Plaintiff’s goods and services.

Finally, the trademark infringement claim was founded on Defendant’s willful and

unlicensed use and marketing of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, including “DeMark

Indicators,” “Sequential,” “Setup,” “Countdown,” and “Combo,” leading to confusion in the

marketplace regarding the association of Defendant with Plaintiff. Taken together, these legal

theories are based on facts that relate to Defendant’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s business

reputation and goodwill and the resultant damages. 

In its newly-added claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew of and intentionally

interfered with Plaintiff’s business expectancy. This argument is squarely constructed around

Defendant’s alleged publication of “the Traders’ Tips[,] knowing the publications contained

inaccurate and misleading representations of the DeMark Indicators.” (Doc. 28 at ¶ 52).

Plaintiff relies on facts that relate to Plaintiff’s business expectancy, Defendant’s knowledge

of that expectancy, and Defendant’s intentional interference with the business expectancy

Case 2:11-cv-01895-JAT Document 62 Filed 10/22/12 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 -

that caused damage to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that these are new factual allegations that

present new issues. However, though shrouded in different language, these claims merely

amount to the presentation of a new theory, not a new issue. Like Plaintiff’s contentions in

the original complaint, Plaintiff relies on facts that relate to Defendant’s unauthorized use of

Plaintiff’s business reputation and goodwill and the resultant damages to make its intentional

interference argument. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same matrix of

facts, and Plaintiff’s addition of its improper interference with a business relationship claim

is simply a new legal theory that does not entitle Plaintiff to the revival of its right to a jury

trial.

Further, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any evidence that its original

failure to request a jury demand resulted from anything other than oversight or

inadvertence. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff a

jury trial.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Technical Analysis, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jury

Demand (Doc. 48) is granted.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01895-JAT Document 62 Filed 10/22/12 Page 4 of 4