Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00927/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00927-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alliance Labs, LLC and Enemeez, Inc., )

)

Plaintiffs/Counter ) 2:12-cv-927JWS

Claim Defendants )

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ) [Re: Motions at dockets

) 172, 178, and 183]

Defendant/Counter )

Claimant. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 172 Alliance Labs, LLC and Enemeez, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) move for a

preliminary and permanent injunction against Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(“Defendant”). The motion also asks to consolidate the injunctive proceedings with a

trial on the merits and to expedite resolution of the case. Defendant has not filed

anything explicitly labeled as a response, but the court considers Defendant’s motion to

strike at docket 183 to be an opposition, for in addition to a request to strike Plaintiffs’

expert reports, it also set out arguments against consolidation and expedition of

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 202 Filed 10/07/13 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

resolution. Plaintiffs’ response to docket 183 is at docket 187. Defendant replies to the

filing at docket 187 in its filing at docket 194

Defendant moves for a preliminary injunction at docket 178. Plaintiffs’ response

is at docket 190. Defendant’s reply is at docket 200.

II. DISCUSSION

Injunctive relief is recognized to be an extraordinary remedy1 which is not

routinely granted.2 Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate when plaintiffs establishes

(I) probable success on the merits and irreparable harm if relief is denied, or (ii) that

there are serious questions on the merits and the balance of hardship tips sharply in

favor of plaintiffs.3

 The seemingly alternative tests represent a single spectrum of

concerns in which the critical element is relative hardship. The higher plaintiffs’

probability of success, the less the balance of hardships need tip in plaintiffs’ favor.4

Based on the parties’ papers, the court concludes that Defendant’s motion at

docket 178 must be denied. Defendant has not shown a significant probability of

success on the merits, nor irreparable harm if the motion is not granted. Similarly, while

there is some question on the merits, the balance of hardships does not tip in

Defendant’s favor. 

1See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op, 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001) citing

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).

2Martin v. O’Grady, 783 F. Supp. 1191, 1195 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

3Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Id., quoting from Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles County Fed’n of Labor

(AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 202 Filed 10/07/13 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

Plaintiffs’ motion at docket 172 seeks both a preliminary and a permanent

injunction, consolidation of the injunctive proceedings with a trial on the merits, and an

expedited schedule. Defendant opposes the request for consolidation and expedition. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ expert reports are (actually will be when filed)

untimely. The argument has no merit. The court explicitly ruled at docket 119 that the

date for Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures would be 60 days from Defendant’s service of

complete responses to specified discovery requests made by Plaintiffs. Defendant did

not comply with the order at docket 119, as explained in the order at docket 193 which

imposed sanctions on Defendant for failure to do so. The order at docket 193

established a procedure to ensure that there would be a complete response to the

discovery requests. That procedure has not yet been completed. Under these

circumstances the request to strike Plaintiffs’ experts is utterly without merit.

Turning to consolidation of the injunctive proceedings with trial on the merits, this

court concludes that such consolidation is warranted. It is the best way to assure a

well-informed decision on the merits. Turning to the request to expedite trial, the court

notes that Defendant’s failure to file complete responses to long outstanding discovery

requests caused the court to set a specific schedule in the order at docket 119, which

provides for completion of both lay and expert discovery tied to Plaintiffs’ certification of

full compliance by Defendant with the outstanding discovery requests. That cannot

happen until completion of the forensic review required by the order at docket 193. At

this time, the court declines to depart from the schedule already established. If, after

Plaintiffs certify full compliance with Defendant’s discovery obligations, either side

3

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 202 Filed 10/07/13 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

wishes the court to modify the schedule set out in the order at docket. it may move for a

modification.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motions at dockets 178 and 183 are DENIED, and

the motion at docket 172 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The

hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief will be consolidated with the trial on the

merits. Trial will be scheduled as soon after completion of discovery as reasonably

possible, but the court will not presently expedite trial such that it would be set sooner

than is consistent with the discovery schedule in the order at docket 119.

DATED this 7th day of October 2013.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 202 Filed 10/07/13 Page 4 of 4