N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

STOP STAR ING! DESIGNS, a C a lifornia c orpora tion, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. TATYANA, LLC , a Ne va da c orpora tion, DB A B e ttie Pa ge C lothing; TATYANA KHOM YAKOVA, a

n individua l; JAN GLASSER , a n individua l; DESIGN TEC HNOLOGY GR OUP LLC , a Ne va da lim i te d lia bility c om pa ny , DB A B e ttie Pa ge C l othing, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55051 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02014-DSFAJW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
AUG 31 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : M ELLOY, * * B YB EE, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. A jury found Bet t ie Pa ge C lothing (B e ttie Pa ge ) infringe d Stop Sta ring! D es i gn s’ s (Stop Sta ring) tra de dre ss. C iting e vide ntia ry e rrors, the distric t c ourt gra n te d a ne w t

ria l. It la te r gra nte d a m otion to e xc lude Stop Sta ring’ s da m a ge s e xpe rt in a subse que nt t

ria l a nd to p rohibit Stop Sta ring from se e k i ng lost p rof i t s o r u n j ust

e nric hm e nt. The pa

rtie s a gre e d to dism i ss a ll re m a i ning c la i m s, a nd Stop St a ring

a ppe a le d. W e a ffirm

in a ll re spe c ts.

I

Stop Sta ring sue d B e ttie Pa ge in M a rc h 2009 for tra d e dre s s infringe m e nt a n d unfa ir c om

p e tition. A jury a wa rde d Stop Sta ring a c tua l da m a g e s an d d am a ge s for unjust e nric hm e nt, but thedistric t c ourt gra nte d a ne w tria l.

B e ttie Pa ge m ove d to e xc lude Stop Sta ring’ s da m a ge s e xpe rt from a subse que nt tria l a nd a ske d the distri ct co u r t to p rohibit Stop Sta ring from se e king unjust

e nric hm e nt or lost p rofit da m a ge s. The dis t r i ct c ourt gra nte d B e ttie Pa ge ’ s m otion.

** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. -2-The pa

rtie s a gre e d to d ism iss a ll re m a ining c la i m s, a nd Stop Sta ring t im e ly a

ppe a le d.

II

A. Ne w Tria l on Lia

bility A distric t c ourt c a n gra n t a ne w tria l “ for a ny of the re a sons for whic h ne w tria ls ha ve h e re tofore be e n gra n te d in a c ti o n s a t la w in the c o urts of the Unite d Sta te s,” M olski v. M .J. C a

ble , Inc ., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th C ir. 2007 ) (quoting Fe d. R

. C iv. P. 59(a )(1)) (inte rna l q

uota tions om itte d), inc luding whe re “ the ve rdic t is a g a inst the

we ight of t

he e vide nc e ” an d wh er e “ the tria l w a s n ot fa ir to the p a rty m oving,” id. (quoting M ontgom e ry W a rd & C o . v . D u n ca n, 311 U .S. 243, 2 51 (1940)) (inte rna l quota ti o n s o m i t te d). He re , the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t t he ve rdic t wa s a ga i nst the we ight of the e v ide nc e a nd gra nte d a ne w tria l. Ha ving c a re fully r e vie we d the

re c o rd in this c a se , we find no a buse of disc re tion g i v en t he we a k e v i de nc e of a like lihood of c onfusion, Stop Sta ring’ s m isuse of E xhibit 221, a n d th e i m

p r ope r
re butta l a rgum e nt by

Stop Sta ring’ s c ounse l.

-3-B

. Ne w Tria l on Da m a ge s The distric t c ourt gra nte d a ne w tria l on da m a ge s be c a use it found Stop Sta ring pre s e nte d w e a k e vide nc e to show B e ttie Pa ge ’ s a lle g e dly infringing tra de dre ss

a ffe c te d the c om

pa nie s’ re ve nue stre a m s . T h e distric t c ourt de te rm ine d the jury ’ s
ve rdic t re lie d on the te stim ony of R o be rt W unde rlic h. T he distric t c ou r t co n clude d tha t W unde rl i ch’ s the orie s we re unre l ia ble be c a use the y la c ke d fa c tua l founda tions, his c onc lusions we re n ot disc lose d in his e xpe rt re port, h e t es t ifie d be y ond his

e xpe rtise , a

nd, de spite Stop Sta ring’ s a ssura n c e t ha t W u nde rlic h would not te stify a s to c a usa tion, his t e stim ony “ wa s virtua lly t h e o n ly te stim ony tha t e sta blishe d a ny im pa c t of the tra de d

re ss on the b u s ine ss of e i the r pa rty .” The distric t c ourt’ s
c onc lusions ha d support in the re c ord, a nd a ne w tria l is a

ppropria te whe re im

prope r
e xpe rt te stim ony a ffe ct e d the ve rdic t. Se e E sta te of B a ra b in v. Aste n Johnson, Inc ., 740 F.3d 457, 467 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ).

C

. B e tti e Pa g e ’ s M otion in Lim ine to Exc lude Stop Sta ring’ s Da m a ge s Expe rt R o be rt W

unde rlic h from

a Se c ond Tria l Evide ntia ry rulings, i nc luding m otions in lim ine re ga rding e xp er t te stim ony , will be re ve rse d if the distric t c ourt a buse d i ts d isc re t ion. Stil w el l v. Sm ith & Ne phe w, Inc

. , 482 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th C ir. 2007). Expe rt t e stim ony is a dm issible

-4-only if it is “ b oth re le va n t a nd re lia

ble .” B a ra

bin, 740 F.3d a t 463 (quoting Unite d Sta t e s v. Va lle

jo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1019 (9th C i r. 2001)) (inte rna l quota tions o m itte d). Distric t co urts e njoy “ broa d la titude in de te rm ining the a p propria te form of the [re lia bility ] inquiry .” Id. He re , the d istric t c ourt a s se sse d W unde rlic h ’ s re lia bility a n d de te rm i ne d it to be u n re lia b le a nd la c king e xpe rtise i n the industry

. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its broa d d isc re tion by prohibiting W u nde rlic h from te stify ing a t a future tria l

.

D. The Distric t C ourt’ s Dism issa l of C la im s for Unjust Enric hm e nt a nd Lost

Profits The dism issa l of a c la im is a que stion o f la w e n title d to de novo re vie w. S ee Ele c tro Sourc e , Inc

. v. Unite d Pa rc e l Se rv., Inc ., 9 5 F.3d 837, 838 (9th C ir. 1996). W e
c onside r the e v i den c e , e xc luding Stop Sta ring’ s da m a ge s e xpe rt’ s te stim ony , a n d de te rm i ne w he the r t h at evide nc e “ pe rm its only one re a s ona b le c onc lusion a s to the

ve rdic t. ” Id. (quoting Sha ke y ’ s Inc

. v. C ova lt, 704 F.2d 426, 4 30 (9th C ir. 1983)) (inte rna l quota

tions om itte d). W e re v ie w the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to Stop Sta ring a n d dra w a l l re a sona

ble infe re nc e s in Stop Sta ring’ s fa vor. Se e id.

-5-To obta i n dam ag es for l ost profits or unjust e nric hm e nt, Stop Sta ring ha d to

de m onstra

te B e ttie P ag e’ s a l le ge dly infringing tra de dre s s c a use d a rise in B e ttie Pa ge ’ s sa le s or a de c line i n Stop Sta ring’ s s a le s. Se e Fifty -Six Hope R oa d M usic , Ltd.

v. A .V.E.L.A., Inc ., 778 F.3d 1059, 1076 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ The t ra de m a rk holde r ha s the burde n to prove the de fe nda nt infringe r’ s gross re ve nue from t he in f r i n g em e nt.” (e m pha sis a dde d)). The d istric t c ourt dism isse d Stop Sta ring’ s c la im for unjust

e nric hm e nt a nd lost profits be c a use Stop Sta ring fa i le d to show B e ttie Pa ge ’ s a lle g e d
tra de dre ss infringe m e nt c a use d a n e ffe c t on e ithe r c om p any ’ s bottom line

. On de

novo re vie w, we find no e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion.

III

W e affir m the distric t c ourt in a ll re spe c ts.

-6-