Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08163-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

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

Don Medicine Wolf,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ambaya Pilar Martin, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-8163 PCT DGC

ORDER DENYING

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on October 7, 2010. Plaintiff

presented four witnesses and Defendants presented one. The parties also submitted exhibits

and made oral arguments. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for

a preliminary injunction. Doc. 3.

Plaintiff’s basic assertions are that he created – over the course of 40 years – the

dietary supplement formulas used in Defendants’ business and that Defendants are seeking

to cheat him out of the formulas and profits earned from the formulas. Plaintiff contends that

he entered into a de facto partnership with Defendant Ambaya Martin and that she abused

and mistreated him through much of their relationship. Defendants’ principal objective

during the preliminary injunction hearing was to discredit Plaintiff. After listening to the

evidence and considering the exhibits, the Court finds credibility problems on both sides of

this case. 

Plaintiff’s testimony at the hearing appeared evasive and lacking in candor. Plaintiff

admitted that he has gone by the name Larry Dearborn, but stated that this is his adopted

name from his adoptive parents; his true native American name is Dawn Medicine Wolf.

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/12/10 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 -

Plaintiff denied that he has used other aliases, but an affidavit from Edward Harris, an

investigator from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), states that Plaintiff has used

the names Dr. Fran Anthony, Francis St. Germaine, Ron St. Germaine, Rusty St. Germaine,

and Rusty Barnet while trafficking in misbranded, smuggled, or unapproved drugs. See

Hearing Ex. 6 at 4. 

Plaintiff testified that he attended medical school at Cornell University, attended

veterinary school at Cornell University, received a Ph.D. in biophysics from Hanover

University in Germany, and studied science in Russia. Plaintiff testified that his formulas

are based on Russian secrets known only to few. Plaintiff denied that he has ever held

himself out as a medical doctor, but later equivocated on this testimony. Plaintiff testified

that he has practiced medicine in Mexico and Canada. 

Plaintiff testified that he was unable to recall the details of a criminal prosecution

against him in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, but exhibits

admitted into evidence show that Defendant pled guilty to 16 federal felony counts, including

false declaration before a court, on July 2, 1993. See Hearing Ex. 4, Criminal Docket at 11-

12. Plaintiff was sentenced to 24 months in the Bureau of Prisons, with credit for time

served, on September 29, 1993. Id. 

The Court also found Plaintiff’s other principal witnesses to be lacking in credibility.

Dr. Horowitz, who testified by telephone from Hawaii, repeatedly emphasized his

international fame. When asked whether Plaintiff’s prior criminal convictions for

introducing unapproved drugs into interstate commerce would concern him, Dr. Horowitz

stated that he would “applaud” Plaintiff’s convictions because Plaintiff overstepped the

authority of the FDA and regulatory agencies. Plaintiff’s witness Sabrina Barnett was more

advocate than witness, arguing with defense counsel and seeking to provide testimony that

was not called for by questions. She testified that she knew Plaintiff was truthful and

Defendant Ambaya Martin was untruthful on the basis of one interview.

The Court also has credibility concerns about Defendants’ case. Defendant Ambaya

Martin testified at the TRO hearing that she and Plaintiff Medicine Wolf developed her

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/12/10 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 -

company’s products together – that he brought dietary and herbal expertise to the business

and she provided funding and organization. Ms. Martin testified at the TRO hearing that the

products were developed while she and Plaintiff Medicine Wolf worked side-by-side over

the course of 10 months in 2007. The products they developed initially were marketed using

Medicine Wolf’s name, and Ms. Martin, after the split with Plaintiff, applied for a trademark

on that name. Doc. 4-1, Ex. I. Given this evidence, Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff has no

interest in the products or their profits seems suspect.

Notwithstanding the difficulty the Court has with the credibility of each side’s case,

the burden of proof at this preliminary injunction stage is on Plaintiff. Given the credibility

problems with Plaintiff’s case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown a probability

of success on the merits. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the balance of hardships tips sharply

in his favor. As a result, preliminary injunctive relied is not warranted. See Alliance for Wild

Rockies v. Cottrell, ___ F.3d ___, 210 WL3665149, at *5-8 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2010) (to

obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must either show that he is likely to succeed on

the merits or that he has raised serious questions and the balance of equities tips sharply in

his favor). 

This is not the only reason for denying injunctive relief. At the TRO hearing, Plaintiff

asked the Court to enjoin Defendants from using Medicine Wolf’s formulas and products.

Plaintiff argued that he owns the formulas, that they constitute trade secrets, that Defendants

have misappropriated the trade secrets, that Defendants’ improper formulations of the

products threaten his reputation and the public health, and that the Court therefore should

enjoin Defendants from continuing to produce and sell his products. At the close of the

preliminary injunction hearing, however, Plaintiff dropped his demand that Defendants stop

using his formulas. Instead, Plaintiff asked the Court to require Defendants to produce an

ongoing accounting “so that when it’s determined that Don Wolf is entitled to half of the

profit or 25 percent of the profit or whatever from the sale of the products he devised, we will

have a means of establishing that.” Court’s LiveNote Transcript, 10-7-10. This is not a

proper request for equitable relief. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide ample tools

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/12/10 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 -

for Plaintiff to conduct discovery and present evidence of profits to which he is entitled.

Plaintiff has made no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such an

ongoing accounting. See Alliance for Wild Rockies, 210 WL3665149 at *5-8 (likelihood of

irreparable harm is a requirement for injunctive relief).

Plaintiff also asked the Court to require Defendants to designate the products in which

Plaintiff allegedly has an interest as either “conforming” or “non-conforming.” Doc. 28-1.

If Defendants designate a product as non-conforming, Plaintiff asks that Defendants be

required to disclaim any affiliation with Medicine Wolf on the product’s label, but does not

ask that any change be made to the product’s formulation or that Defendants be prohibited

from using Plaintiff’s alleged formulas. If a product is designated as conforming, Plaintiff

asks for the right to conduct regular inspections of samples or the product as well as

Defendants’ manufacturing methods and logs. The Court will deny this requested relief

because, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that he is likely to

succeed on the merits of his claim that the products are made with his formulas, nor that the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 3) is denied.

2. The Court will schedule a case management conference by separate order.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/12/10 Page 4 of 4