T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L A R I N C O R P O R A T I O N , aC a lif o rn ia C orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. G W E N M U E L L E R , a n in d iv id u a l, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 55625 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 3 5 - OD W- OP ME MOR AN DU M *

L A R I N C O R P O R A T I O N , aC a lif o rn ia C orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. A L L T R A D E I N C ., aC a lif o rn ia c o rp o r a t i o n ; A LLTRA D E TO O LS LLC; AN DR E L I VI AN , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 55790 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 3 9 4 - OD W- OP



# FI LED FEB 05 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

L AR I N C OR P OR AT I ON , P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, v. A L L T R A D E , I N C ., aC a lif o rn ia c o rp o r a tio n ; A L L T R A D E T O O L S L L C , a C a l i f orni al i m i t e d l i abi l i ty c orpor a t i on; AN DR E L I VI AN , D e f

e n d a n ts - c o u n te r - c la im an ts - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 56191 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 3 9 4 - OD W- OP

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O t i s D . W r i ght , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r9, 2009

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , M cK E O W N an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T hi s tr a de m a rk i nf

r i nge m e nts ui tbe tw e e n L a r i n C orp. ( “ L a r i n” ) a nd A l l tr a de I nc . , A l l tr a de L L C a nd A ndr e L i vi a n ( “ A l l tr a de ” ) pr e s e nt s thr e e i s s ue s on ap p e a l. F ir s t, w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in g r a n tin g A lltr a d e ’s m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l g r o u n d s . S e c o n d , w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g L a r in ’s m o tio n to add a cl ai m of fa l se advert i si ng t o the pretri al order. F i nal l y, w e c on si der w hether3

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in g a s d u p lic a tiv e L a r in ’s s e p a r a te s u it a g a in s t f

o rm e rA lltr a d e e m p lo y e e G w e n M u e lle r . W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm ent , S an P e dr o H ot e l C o. v. C i ty of L os A nge l e s , 159 F . 3d 470, 477 ( 9th C i r . 1998) , but r e vi e w the appl i c a t i on of j udi c i a l e s t oppe l t o the f a c t s of the c a s e f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n . W illia m s v . B o e in g C o ., 5 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 3 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of the s ui ta ga i ns tG w e n M ue l l e rf orabus e of di sc re t i on . A dam s v. C al . D ep’ tof H ea l th S ervs. , 48 7 F . 3d 68 4, 68 8 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). I . T RADE D RE SS I NFRINGEMENT B o th p a rtie s s e ll h y d r au lic - lif t s to o ls s ty le d lik e m o to r c y c le s e a ts . L a r in c la im s th a t th e p h o to g r ap h s a n d c o lo r in g o n th e p a c k a g in g in w h ic h A lltr a d e s e lls i t s s t ool s i s c onf

us i ngl y s i m i l a rt o the phot ogr aphs a nd c ol or i ng on the pa c ka gi ng in w h ic h L a r in s e lls its s to o ls . L a r in s e e k s r e lie f u n d e r§ 4 3 ( a ) o f

th e L a n h a m A c t. 15 U . S . C . § 1125( a ) . A l l tr a de c l a i m s tha tL a r i n s houl d be j udi c i a l l y e s t oppe d f r om p u r s u in g ac la im f

o rtr a d e d r e s s in f

r in g e m e n t b e c au s e d u r in g d is c o v e ry L a r in shi ft ed fr om a tra de dres s i nfri ng em entcl ai m t o a fa l se advert i si ng cl ai m (w hi ch m a y a l s o be r e m e di e d unde r§ 43( a ) ) a nd A l l tr a de w a s thus pr e j udi c e d i n pr e pa r i ng i t s def ense .4

W e do n otop i ne as t o w hether the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed that L a r i n’ s a tt orne y a tt e m pt e d t o m i s l e a d A l l tr a de ’ s c ouns e l dur i ng di s c ove ry— a nd th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f

ru s tr a tio n w ith s a id c o u n s e l’s la c ko f c la r ity is c e r ta in ly un ders t andabl e— bu tas sum i ng there i s e rr or t o b e r em edi ed here, j ud i ci al es t op pel i s the w rong t oo l for the j ob . W e uph ol d a di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of j ud i ci al e s to p p e l w h e n : “1 ) th e p a rty ’s c u rr e n t p o s itio n is ‘c le a r ly in c o n s is te n t’ w ith its e a r lie rp o s itio n , 2 ) th e p a rty w a s s u c c e s s f u l in p e r s u a d in g ac o u r t to a c c e p t its earl i erpo si t i on , and 3 ) the party w ou l d ‘ deri ve an un fa i r a dv ant age or i m po se an un fa i r detri m enton the op po si ng party i f notes t op ped. ’ ” W i l l i am s, 51 7 F . 3d at 1134 ( quot i ng N e w H a m ps hi r e v. M a i ne , 532 U . S . 742, 750- 51 ( 2001) ) . N one of tho se el em ent s are m eti n thi s c as e. L a r i n’ s s c a tt e r e d r e f

e r e nc e s t o f

a l s e a dve r t i s i ng dur i ng di s c ove ry do not s u p p o r t th e c o n te n tio n th a t L a r in a d o p te d d is p a r a te p o s itio n s th a t w e r e c le a r ly i nc ons i s t e ntw i th one a nothe r . T hr oughoutthe r e c or d, the e s s e nt i a l na tur e of the di sput e i s r ea di l y app ar ent . T he re cord i s r epl et e w i th cl ai m s abo utand d i sc ov ery rel at ed t o th e si m i l ari t i es b etw een th e L ari n an d A l l trad e b o x es. C l ai m s o f fal se advert i si ng and tra de dres s i nfri ng em entar e notm utual l y e xcl usi ve, and p l ai nt i ff s c a n a nd do a dva nc e both the or i e s i n ac om pl a i nt . S e e , e . g. , C oope rI ndus . v. L e a the rm a n T ool G r oup, 532 U . S . 424, 428 ( 2001) . A l l tr a de a c know l e dge d dur i ng5

th e p retri al co n feren ce th atth e el em en t s o f fal se ad v ert i si n g an d trad e d ress i nfri ng em entov er l ap t o som e degree . L ari n ’ s sel f-d efi n i t i o n o f “ trad e d ress” du ri ng di sc ov ery m ud di ed the w at er s, bu ti n the end d i d n otchange the es se nt i al n atu re o f i t s cl ai m s. W e have al so “ re stri ct ed the appl i ca t i on of j ud i ci al es t op pel t o cas es w here the courtre l i ed on , or ‘ ac ce pt ed, ’ the party’ s pre vi ou s i ncon si st entpo si t i on . ” H am i l t on v. S t at e F arm F i re & C as . C o. , 27 0 F . 3d 77 8, 78 2-83 (9th C i r. 20 01 ); se e a l s o U ni t e d N a t i ona l I ns ur a nc e C o. v. S pe c trum W or l dw i de , I nc . , 555 F . 3d 772, 7 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . N o th in g in th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t L a r in s u c c e e d e d in pers uadi ng the di stri ctor m agi stra t e j ud ges t o acc eptthe po si t i on thatL ar i n h ad ab a n d o n e d i t s tr a d e d r e s s i n f r i n g e me n tc l a i m. F i nal l y, there i s i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe cl ai m thatA l l tra de w as prej ud i ce d b y L ar i n’ s behavi or. D es pi t e the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that L ari n ’ s co u n sel w as p l ayi n g “ b ai t -an d -sw i t ch ” w i th i t s th eo ri es o f l i ab i l i ty, A l l tr a de w a s abl e t o obt a i n e vi de nc e r e l e va ntt o both f a l s e a dve r t i s i ng a nd tr a de dres s i nfri ng em entdefe nses . Indeed, w hi l e A l l tra de as se rt ed on appeal thati thad notc onduc t e d s uf

f i c i e ntdi s c ove ry on tr a de dr e s s i nf r i nge m e nte l e m e nt s l i ke se cond ary m eani ng , i t s f i nal pretri al di sc l osure t el l s adi ff er entst ory. T here , A l l tr a de a s s e rt e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha ti t s e xpe r tw a s r e a dy t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng6

s e c onda ry m e a ni ng i n the L a r i n a nd A l l tr a de pa c ka gi ng. J u d ic ia l e s to p p e l is n o t ap p lic ab le in th is c a s e b e c au s e n o n e o f th e e le m e n ts a r e m e t. W e th e r e f

o r e r e v e r s e th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith r e g a r d to L a r i n’ s tr a de dr e s s i nf

r i nge m e ntc l a i m a ga i ns tA l l tr a de a nd r e m a nd. II. F ALSE A DVERTI SING C LA IM T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d L a r i n’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

i t s f i ndi ng tha tL a r i n aba ndone d a ny c l a i m f orf a l s e a dve r t i s i ng, be c aus e the f a l s e a dve r t i s i ng c la im w a s n o t p a rt o f

th e p r e tr ia l o r d e r . W e a f f irm th a t ru lin g . I n a n y e v e n t, th is i s s ue i s m ootbe c aus e L a r i n’ s a r gum e nton appe a l w a s pr e di c a t e d on a f f i rm a nc e of di sm i ss al of the tra de dres s i nfri ng em entcl ai m , w hi ch w e r ever se . III. M UELLER C OMPLAINT W e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of L ar i n’ s c l ai m s a gai nstG w en M uel l er . T he cl ai m s a gai nstM uel l erw er e i dent i ca l t o tho se pl ed agai nstA l l tra de, a nd A l l tr a de i de nt i f

i e d M ue l l e ra s a n e m pl oy e e i nvol ve d w i th the c r e a t i on of the A lltr a d e tr a d e d r e s s p r io rto th e s c h e d u lin g o r d e r ’s d e a d lin e to a d d n e w p a r tie s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng the dupl i c a t i ve com pl ai ntagai nstM uel l er .7 I V. W AIVE R OF C L A I MS L ar i n ass ert ed i n the S t at em entof Is sues i n i t s openi ng bri ef thatthe di stri ct c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s to A lltr a d e p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 7 . L a r in di d not , how e ve r , of f e ra ny a r gum e ntorauthor i ty on thi s i s s ue a nd the a r gum e nti s the r e f

or e w a i ve d. K ohl e rv. I nt e r - t e l T e c hnol ogi e s , 244 F . 3d 1167, 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). W e affi rm th e g ran to f att o rn eys’ fees. L ar i n al so fa i l ed t o d evel op i t s pas si ng as se rt i on thatthe di stri ctcourt dem on stra t ed prej ud i ce agai nstL ar i n’ s c ou nsel , and thatw e s ho ul d there fore di re ct the ca se t o a di ff

er entdi stri ctj ud ge. T hi s argum enti s w ai ved, and w e are c onf i de nttha tthe a s s i gne d di s tr i c tj udge c a n gi ve af a i rhe a r i ng t o L a r i n’ s tr a de d r e s s i n f r i n g e me n tc l a i m. W e A F F I R M the di s m i s s a l of the M ue l l e rc om pl a i nt , the di s m i s s a l of the f a l s e a d v e rt i s i n g c l a i m, a n d th e g r a n to f a tt o rn e y s ’ f

e e s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1927, a nd R E V E R S E the gr a ntof A l l tr a de ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton th e tr a d e d r e s s in f

r in g e m e n t c la im . E a c h s id e s h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l.