Court Opinion

ID: 9964631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 16:00:35.653979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:38.111049
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGUSTIN RAMIREZ; AGUSTIN                        No.    23-55112
RAMIREZ, Jr.; ANTHONY RAMIREZ,
                                                D.C. No. 5:20-cv-02408-SP
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MARTIN NAVARRO; DOES, 1-10,
inclusive,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                     Sheri Pym, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted April 11, 2024
                              Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and MENDOZA and DE ALBA, Circuit
Judges.

      Appellants Agustin Ramirez, Agustin Ramirez, Jr., and Anthony Ramirez

(“the Ramirez family”) appeal the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of Martin Navarro (“Navarro”) on the Ramirez family’s claims

under the Lanham Act and California state law. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

         1.    The district court held that the doctrine of laches barred the Ramirez

family’s trademark claims under the Lanham Act and related state law claims. We

agree.

         The doctrine of laches is based on equitable principles and functions as a

time limit on a party’s right to bring a suit. Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods

Mkt., Inc., 880 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2018). Laches can bar recovery in a

trademark action, including where injunctive relief is sought. E-Sys., Inc. v.

Monitek, Inc., 720 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1983). Laches is a defense to both

Lanham Act claims and related state law claims. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v.

Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 842–43 (9th Cir. 2002).

         “To establish laches a defendant must prove both an unreasonable delay by

the plaintiff and prejudice to itself.” Couveau v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 218 F.3d 1078,

1083 (9th Cir. 2000). We have established a two-step process to guide our

analysis. La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867, 878

(9th Cir. 2014). First, we assess a plaintiff’s delay by seeing whether the most

analogous statute of limitations expired before the suit was filed; if it has expired,

there is a strong presumption in favor of laches. Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosm.

Warriors, Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th Cir. 2018). The presumption is reversed

if the analogous statute of limitations has not expired. Id. The most analogous

                                            2                                23-55112
statute of limitations in this case is California’s four-year statute of limitations for

trademark infringement claims. See id. Second, we assess the equity of applying

laches using what have become known as the E-Systems factors: “(1) strength and

value of trademark rights asserted; (2) plaintiff’s diligence in enforcing mark; (3)

harm to senior user if relief denied; (4) good faith ignorance by junior user; (5)

competition between senior and junior users; and (6) extent of harm suffered by

junior user because of senior user’s delay.” Id. (quoting E-Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d at

607) (internal quotation marks omitted).

      A party with unclean hands may not assert laches. Jarrow Formulas, 304

F.3d at 851. “[O]nly a showing of wrongfulness, willfulness, bad faith, or gross

negligence, proved by clear and convincing evidence, will establish sufficient

culpability for invocation of the doctrine of unclean hands.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Int’l

Rectifier Corp., 685 F.2d 357, 359 (9th Cir. 1982).

      The Ramirez family learned that the name of Navarro’s band—Los

Caminantes HN—included the mark “Los Caminantes” in 2011. They sued

Navarro in September 2011; Navarro counterclaimed and the parties agreed to

dismiss the suit in May 2012. Navarro continued to use the band name. The

Ramirez family was aware of Navarro’s continued use of the mark. However, the

Ramirez family did not sue Navarro again until November 2020, over five years

after the analogous statute of limitations expired. This nine year delay creates a

                                            3                                  23-55112
strong presumption in favor of laches.

      The E-Systems factors also favor laches. While the mark is conceptionally

strong, the Ramirez family failed to diligently enforce it. Their lack of diligence

contradicts their claims of harm. Nor does the Ramirez family provide sufficient

evidence to support their claim of unclean hands. Navarro toured extensively and

never attempted to hide his use of the mark. The district court considered these

circumstances when it determined that the Ramirez family’s delay in filing suit

was unreasonable and prejudiced Navarro. The district court properly granted

summary judgment on this basis.

      2.     The district court held that the Ramirez family’s state law intentional

interference with prospective business advantage claim was barred by the statute of

limitations. The statute of limitations for an intentional interference with

prospective business advantage claim is two years. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1).

“A ruling on the appropriate statute of limitations is a question of law reviewed de

novo.” Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cali., 993 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993).

      The Ramirez family knew of Navarro’s actions beginning in 2011. They

argue that because the continuing accrual doctrine can apply to common law

claims, it must apply here. However, Navarro never had an ongoing, recurring

obligation to the Ramirez family. Cf. Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., 292 P.3d

871, 875–76 (Cal. 2013) (“[U]nder the theory of continuous accrual, a series of

                                          4                                    23-55112
wrongs or injuries may be viewed as each triggering its own limitations period,

such that a suit for relief may be partially time-barred as to older events but timely

as to those within the applicable limitations period.”). In Aryeh, the California

Supreme Court reiterated that while the doctrine of continuous accrual may apply

to unfair competition claims such as intentional interference with prospective

business advantage, what is dispositive is “the nature of the right sued upon and the

circumstances attending its invocation,” not the labeling of the cause of action.

292 P.3d at 878 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The continuous

accrual doctrine applied in that case because there was a continuing obligation

between the parties; the petitioner was subject to monthly bills, some of which

came due within the applicable statute of limitations. Aryeh, 292 P.3d at 881; see

id. at 880 (“The theory is a response to the inequities that would arise if the

expiration of the limitations period following a first breach of duty or instance of

misconduct were treated as sufficient to bar suit for any subsequent breach or

misconduct; parties engaged in long-standing misfeasance would thereby obtain

immunity in perpetuity from suit even for recent and ongoing misfeasance.”). But

that doctrine does not save the Ramirez family’s tort claim for intentional

interference from summary judgment because they fail to raise a triable issue of

fact as to any tortious conduct that Navarro allegedly committed in the two-year

period preceding the lawsuit that differed from the conduct he engaged in

                                           5                                  23-55112
beginning in 2011.

AFFIRMED.

                     6   23-55112