Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01727/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01727-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

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

General Dentistry For Kids, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kool Smiles, P.C., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1727-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 41).

Plaintiff is suing Defendant, Kool Smiles, P.C., (“Kool”) for trademark infringement and

unfair competition for use of the phrases, “GENERAL DENTISTRY FOR KIDS” and

“GENERAL DENTISTRY 4 KIDS.” (Dkt.#1) Defendant asks this Court to determine

whether Plaintiff, General Dentistry for Kids, LLC, (“GD4K”) has provided sufficient

evidence to withstand Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if the evidence shows “that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A material issue of fact is one that

affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the differing versions of

the truth. S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1982). To defeat the

motion, the non-moving party must show that there are genuine factual issues “that properly

Case 2:07-cv-01727-MHM Document 59 Filed 04/15/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of

either party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Summary

judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish

the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear

the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

Here, the Court need not reach the trademark and unfair competition issues that were

briefed by the parties. Plaintiff concedes that Kool is a Georgia-based corporation that does

not have any presence in Arizona and does not conduct any business in Arizona. (Dkt.# 42

¶¶ 1, 2, Dkt.#53, ¶ 1) According to information submitted by Defendant (and uncontested

by Plaintiff), Kool Smiles dental offices in Arizona apparently conduct business using the

following entities: KS AZ-1, PC, KS AZ-2, PC, KS AZ-3, PC, and KS AZ-4, PC. (Dkt.# 42

¶ 2, Exh. A ¶¶ 1, 3; Dkt.#53 ¶ 1) Plaintiff failed to name any of these entities as defendants,

nor has it moved to amend the complaint to include these defendants. Plaintiff merely states

in a footnote to its brief that it is “investigating” these contentions and that “[i]f it determines

that it has sued the wrong party, [it] will move under Rule 41(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. to dismiss

the present action and refile against the correct parties in Maricopa County Superior Court.”

(Dkt. #52 at 2) 

However, the time for investigation is past; at summary judgment, the burden is on

Plaintiff to come forward with evidence to support its claim. Plaintiff’s failure to respond

in any other way to these assertions is tantamount to an admission that it has sued the wrong

party. The Complaint itself limits the claims at issue to conduct that occurred in Arizona,

stating in paragraph 3 that “Defendant has caused events to occur in Maricopa County,

Arizona, upon which the claims asserted in this action are based,” yet the parties agree that

the only named defendant conducted no business in and has no presence in Arizona. (Dkt.#1

¶ 3;Dkt.# 42 ¶ 2, Dkt.#53, ¶ 1) The Court has no jurisdiction over entities who are not named

as defendants; therefore it does not (and cannot) reach the hypothetical trademark and unfair

competition questions that the parties have briefed. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998) (“Hypothetical jurisdiction produces nothing more than a

Case 2:07-cv-01727-MHM Document 59 Filed 04/15/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

hypothetical judgment – which comes to the same thing as an advisory opinion, disapproved

by [the Supreme] Court from the beginning.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and dismissing this case with prejudice. (Dkt.# 41)

JUDGMENT ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01727-MHM Document 59 Filed 04/15/09 Page 3 of 3