IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES, 

a Florida corporation, d/b/a 

BOB TYLER TOYOTA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. Case No. 3:09cv571/RS-MD

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC, 

an Alabama Limited Liability Company; 

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, an 

Alabama Limited Liability Company; 

SHAWN ESFAHANI, Individually; 

and DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC., 

an Alabama Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

AMENDED ORDER

 Before me is Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (Doc. 181). 

Background

After the close of evidence at trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 I granted 

judgment as a matter of law to Defendants on Plaintiff’s dilution, unfair 

competition, and false advertising claims, as well as Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 

Fla. Stat. §668.701. This left only Plaintiff’s claim under the Anti-Cybersquatting 
Consumer Protection Act for determination by the jury, which ultimately returned 

a verdict in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff now moves post-trial for reconsideration 

of my order granting judgment for Defendants, and judgment as a matter of law on 

all of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Analysis

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, the court may grant a party’s motion for 

judgment as a matter of law if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient 

evidentiary basis to find for the other party. Thus, a district court’s proper analysis 

is “squarely and narrowly focused on the sufficiency of evidence.” Optimum 

Technologies, Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc., 496 F.3d 1231, 1251 (11th 

Cir. 2007)(citing Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 

2007)). 

 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on my ruling granting judgment as a 

matter of law for Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fla. Stat. §668.701 is 

denied. At trial, Plaintiff failed to show any evidence of Defendants actually 

collecting the statutorily-enumerated personal information, or proof that the 

information was collected from a Florida resident. Therefore, the evidence was 

insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on my ruling granting judgment as a 

matter of law for Defendants on Plaintiff’s dilution, false advertising, and state and 
federal unfair competition claims is also denied. All of these claims sought 

injunctive relief, but Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of a future injury. 

The law requires a reasonable likelihood of future injury to warrant the equitable 

relief of an injunction. See Fram Corp. v. Boyd, 230 F.2d 931, 934 (5th Cir. 

1956);1 Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 2 So.3d 325, 327 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2008). Because the evidence was legally insufficient to support the equitable 

relief sought by Plaintiff, these claims were properly dismissed. 

 Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the AntiCybersquatting claim is denied. The evidence presented at trial was legally 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of Defendants, and therefore 

judgment as a matter of law is not appropriate. 

Conclusion

 Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 181) is denied.

ORDERED on November 19, 2010. 

 /s/ Richard Smoak 

 RICHARD SMOAK 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981), the decisions of the 

Fifth Circuit before September 30, 1981 are binding precedent on all federal courts within the 

Eleventh Circuit.