Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01549/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01549-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement (jurisdiction)

---

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

PROFIL INSTITUT FUR

STOFFWECHSELFORSCHUNG GMBH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1549-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND

ADMONITION TO COUNSEL

vs.

PROSCIENTO, INC.,

Defendant.

On February 28, 2017, the Court summarily denied Defendant Prosciento’s motion

for a preliminary injunction, noting that Defendant had no claims pending before the Court. 

The order, however, gave ProSciento leave to renew its motion after filing a counterclaim.

Instead of preparing and filing a counterclaim, ProSciento that same day filed an

unauthorized motion for reconsideration. See Chambers Standing Order ¶ 4(j)

(requirements for filing motions for reconsideration that include, among other things, a

request for leave to file such a motion). Violation of the Court’s order, by itself, would

support summary denial of the motion. See Civil Local Rule 83.1.

Even if the motion had been properly filed, however, it would be denied on the merits. 

The motion suggests that the Court has ignored what it calls the routine practice of courts

across the nation. But ProSciento’s analysis has focused solely on those parts of holdings

or other authorities that favor its position, while neglecting the limitations on them.

16cv1549

Case 3:16-cv-01549-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 03/02/17 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

First, it should be noted that this case has been pending for eight months, and during

that time ProSciento has never filed a counterclaim or — until now — suggested that it might

do so. The cases and other authority ProSciento has cited uniformly stand for the

proposition that in exigent circumstances, a court can grant preliminary injunctive before a

complaint is formally filed. In those circumstances, they explain, the court can treat some

other document as filling the role of the complaint or counterclaim. Similarly, they all agree

that it is preferable that a complaint or counterclaim be filed first. 

In Ruscitto v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 1349, 1352

(N.D. Tex. 1991), the court explained:

There is scant authority on the question, but the court is satisfied from its

research that [the defendant] need not have filed a counterclaim. At least

one circuit court has held there are circumstances of such an exigent nature

that an injunction can precede even the filing of the suit itself. In Studebaker

Corp. v. Gittlin, 360 F.2d 692 (2d Cir.1966), the Second Circuit affirmed an

injunction entered by the district court on the basis of an affidavit and without

a complaint. Id. at 694. The circuit court observed that “it would have been

better to file a complaint along with the affidavit and order to show cause,”

id., but under the circumstances (a complaint was filed after the hearing but

before the injunction issued), the district court could properly treat the

affidavit as a complaint. Id. Professors Wright and Miller state as the

applicable rule that, “although it is preferable to file the complaint first, a

preliminary injunction may be granted upon a motion made before a formal

complaint is presented.” 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2949 at 468 (1973).

ProSciento cites Absolute Bus. Solutions, inc. v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 2016

WL 2757381 (D. Nev. May 12, 2016) as an example of a case where a court decided a

defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction on the merits in spite of the lack of a

counterclaim, because the complaint involved adjudication of the defendant’s rights in certain

property. In fact, that court denied relief, noting many inadequacies in the defendant’s

motion. Among other things, the court pointed out that that the claims in the complaint would

not entitle the defendant to the relief she sought in her motion. Id. at *2 (“Accordingly, there

are no grounds on which the court can grant such preliminary relief, regardless of her

success with respect to [claims presented in the complaint]”). 

ProSciento also cites HPEV, Inc. v. Spirit Bear Ltd., 2014 WL 3845126 (D. Nev. Aug.

5, 2014) as an example of a case where a court dispensed with the need to file a

16cv1549

Case 3:16-cv-01549-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 03/02/17 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

counterclaim. In fact, the court found little likelihood of success on other grounds, then in

a footnote offered the language that ProSciento relies on. See id. at *2 n.9. This is purely

dicta, because the court noted that the defendant in fact had added the claim to its

responsive pleading. Id. And in any event, the short section ProSciento relies on is merely 1

a summary of Ruscitto, including its limitations.

ProSciento also cites Bader v. Wernert, 178 F. Supp. 3d 703, 719 n.14 (N.D. Ind.,

2016). The issue being discussed there dealt with a wrongful termination claim that had

been mentioned in a complaint’s prayer for relief, but not formally raised in the complaint.

The court was clarifying whether that remained a live claim. It made the same unremarkable

observation that, in unusual circumstances, a party may seek a preliminary injunction on a

basis not named in the complaint. The court then went on to find the claim had been waived

by failing to develop it. 

The only other case ProSciento cites is an unpublished bankruptcy appeal from 2005,

In re Ghidei, 2005 WL 6960240 (B.A.P. 9 Cir. June 22, 2005). Under Ninth Circuit Rule 36- th

1, this case is not citable. And in any event it does not stand for the proposition ProSciento

believes it does; all it says is that a motion for preliminary injunction may be made before

service of the complaint has been completed. Id. at *2. It also mentions the same principles

as the cases discussed earlier.

Here, the circumstances were not unique or even unusual. Although it had plenty of

time to do so, ProSciento has never brought any claim. Without a clearly-stated claim to

evaluate, the Court has no good way to evaluate its likelihood of success on the merits. 

Although ProSciento conceives its claim as the counterpart to Profil’s claims regarding the

American trademark “Profil,” one party’s failure on that claim would not ensure the other’s

success. The claim and counterclaim are not two sides of the same coin, where the success

A review of the docket in that case shows that the defendant filed a formal

1

counterclaim that included the relevant claims after filing its motion for preliminary injunction,

but before the court ruled on the motion. (See Docket in HPEV, Inc. v. Spirit Bear Ltd.,

13cv1548-JAD (GWF) (D. Nev., filed Aug. 27, 2013), Docket nos. 87 (motion for preliminary

injunction); 118 (order granting leave to amend); 119 (amended answer and counterclaim);

and 132 (order denying preliminary injunction).)

16cv1549

Case 3:16-cv-01549-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 03/02/17 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

of the one means the failure of the other, and vice versa. Here, both claims could fail. For

example, Profil could fail to show prior use or any senior interest in the mark, while Profil

could be found to have abandoned it. In such a situation, the Court might find that neither

party owned the mark, or that ProSciento formerly owned it but now Profil does. Moreover,

in both related cases the Court has issued an order to show cause, which the parties have

yet to respond to, regarding the mootness of claims for prospective injunctive relief

concerning use of the mark. So it is not yet clear whether any claims to the mark will remain

pending.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not

be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). Motions for reconsideration, similarly, are

disfavored except in extraordinary circumstances, none of which are present here. See

Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9 Cir. 2003). th

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ProSciento may, if it wishes, file a

counterclaim and then renew its motion for preliminary injunction. If it does so, the motion

should be filed as an ex parte motion, and Profil will have 10 calendar days to file an

opposition. No reply brief should be filed, and the Court will set a hearing if appropriate. 

Otherwise the matter will be deemed submitted on the papers. 

The trade shows where ProSciento believes Profil may infringe the mark are coming

shortly. If ProSciento renews its motion, it should show why it could not have sought relief

earlier. Bearing in mind that adjudication of the motion is likely to take some time and some

of the claims may become moot while the Court is considering the issues, the motion should

also make clear whether the preliminary injunction would have value if not issued right away.

Admonition to Counsel

While zealous advocacy is appropriate and even laudable, the Court observes a

tendency to overlitigate this case, resulting in a waste of resources. The Court will closely

scrutinize future filings for relevance and may summarily reject filings that do not comply with

applicable rules or are inapposite.

16cv1549

Case 3:16-cv-01549-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 03/02/17 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

Counsel are also reminded that in addition to managing the case, the Court must also

confirm its own jurisdiction before making any rulings on the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens for

a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). To that end, the Court has issued orders to show

cause in the two related cases. Counsel should file their responses as promptly as they can,

but in any event no later than the deadlines the Court has set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

16cv1549

Case 3:16-cv-01549-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5