Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01229/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125(a) False representation of goods sold in interstate commerce

---

1

3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

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

OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP, a

Texas limited partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

TREPCO IMPORTS & DISTRIBUTION,

LTD. D/B/A TREPCO WEST D/B/A

TREPCO SALES COMP ANY D/B/A

KENNEDY WHOLESALE, a Michigan

Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; AND

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION.

ECF Nos. 5, 7.

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. In light of Plaintiff's dilatory conduct, the

Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Consequently, the Court also finds

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot. Moreover, in so far as

this matter is determined on procedural grounds and the merits are not considered, any

request for judicial notice is also moot.

Case 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

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

I. Procedural History

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff Outlaw Laboratory (“Plaintiff” or “Outlaw”) filed a onecount complaint against Defendants Trepco Imports & Distribution (“Defendant” or

“Trepco”), operating under several d/b/a’s, and Does 1-100, alleging that Defendants had 

violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., by distributing misbranded male 

enhancement pills. ECF No. 1. On August 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff's complaint arguing (1) that Plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata given the 

dismissal of another Lanham Act claim in a prior Nevada suit between the same parties 

and (2) that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. ECF 

No. 5. Then, on August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, 

seeking a court order enjoining Defendant from advertising, marketing, distributing, and 

selling certain male enhancement products. ECF No. 7.

On August 22, 2019, the Court noticed both motions for a hearing to be held on

November 1, 2019. ECF No. 8. The Court ordered that opposition briefs be filed on or

before September 12, 2019 and that any replies be filed on or before September 19, 2019.

Id. Defendant filed a timely brief opposing Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

ECF No. 9. To date, Plaintiff has yet to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Neither party filed a reply.

II. The Court Grants Trepco’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2.

Civil Local Rue 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar dates of the noticed hearing (or

when otherwise scheduled by the Court). CivLR 7.1.e.2. Failure to comply with this rule

“may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. Local Rules have

the force of law, United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958), and courts have

discretion to dismiss a case for failure to comply with them. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 F.3d

26 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

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

Before dismissing an action, “the district court is required to weigh several factors:

"(l) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 , 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

Here, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, with

respect to the first two factors, “the record indicates that [Plaintiff] received notice,”

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54, as Defendant’s motion includes a signed certificate of service.

ECF No. 5 at 3. Also, as Plaintiff was given one month to file an opposition, Plaintiff had

“ample time to respond to the motion to dismiss.” Id. Courts of this district have recently

dismissed cases where plaintiffs received the same or less time to brief a response. See,

e.g., Garrison v. Ringgold, No. 19-CV-244-GPC-RBB, 2019 WL 4015568, at *1–2 (S.D.

Cal. Aug. 26,2019) (briefing period of two weeks in response to an anti-SLAPP motion);

Turner v. Berryhill, No. l 7-CV-1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at* 1 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

19, 2018) (briefing period of four weeks in response to a motion to dismiss).

A dismissal here is also not a “drastic sanction” nor is the “the risk of prejudice to

the” Plaintiff high as a meritorious complaint may be re-filed with the Court’s

permission. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. l 5(a)(2). Lastly, while disposing of a case on its merits is

appropriate in some situations, here Plaintiff’s failure to file a response evinces a consent

to dismiss. CivLR 7.l.e.2; Larson-Valentine v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., No. 19-

CV-1209-GPC-AGS, 2019 WL 3766562, at* 1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s

failure to oppose constitutes a waiver or abandonment of the issues raised in Defendant’s

motion”) (citations omitted). Thus, the court finds that analyzing the merits of 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss would be superfluous.

In sum, the Court concludes that a dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate

here pursuant Ghazali and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss on that basis.

Case 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

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

III. The Court Denies Outlaw’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as Moot.

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may only

adjudicate cases or controversies, i.e., matters containing “actual and concrete disputes,

the resolutions of which have direct consequences on the parties involved.” Genesis

Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013). The case-or-controversy

requirement is jurisdictional. Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 2008);

Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1990). Hence,

in the absence of a genuine “case or controversy,” the Court cannot rule on the matter and

the case is said to be “moot.” Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 715

(9th Cir. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted). Similarly, a party cannot seek

injunctive relief without first alleging a case or controversy in the operative pleading, the

complaint. Stewart v. US INS, 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Only after an action

has been commenced can preliminary injunctive relief be obtained.”); Pac. Radiation

Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 , 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s

equitable power lies only over the merits of the case or controversy before it. When a

plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pied in the complaint, the court does

not have the authority to issue an injunction.”).

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute its case 

pursuant to Local Rule Civil Local Rue 7.1.e.2. There is thus “no case or controversy 

pending before the Court, and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction” to hear 

Plaintiff’s motion. Silveira v. CoreCivic, No. 519-CV-00629-FMO-MAA, 2019 WL 

2932645, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2019). Consequently, as has been the longstanding 

practice of this District, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary 

injunction as moot. See, e.g., Raymond J Lucia Companies, Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. 

Comm’n, No. l 8-CV-2692-DMS-JLB, 2019 WL 3997332, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 

2019) (dismissing the complaint on a motion to dismiss and then denying plaintiff’s

Case 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS

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

motion for preliminary injunction as moot); Grant v. Bostwick, No. l 5-CV-874-WQHBLM, 2015 WL 6442303, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015) (same); Stewart v. St. Vincent

de Paul, Inc., No. 12-CV-642-BEN-KSC, 2012 WL 3205576, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6,

2012) (same); Hinrichs v. Olsen, et al, No. 06-CV-2547-JAH-AJB, 2007 WL 9778028, at

*3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2007) (same); Do-Nguyen v. Clinton, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1248

(S.D. Cal. 2000) (same); Council for Life Coal. v. Reno, 856 F. Supp. 1422, 1432 (S.D. 7 

Cal. 1994) (same).

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that:

1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED;

2) Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot; and

3) Any requests for judicial notice are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01229-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5