Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc
Opinion
1 2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 5 EKO BRANDS, LLC, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. C17-894 TSZ 8 ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ MINUTE ORDER 9 ENTERPRISES, INC.; and ADRIAN RIVERA, 10 Defendants. 11
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 12 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 13 (1) Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, docket no. 85, plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), as well as defendants’ 14 counterclaim for declaratory judgment that they have not violated the CPA, are each DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 15 (2) The parties’ stipulated motion, docket no. 90, to seal the unredacted version 16 of the proposed Pretrial Order, docket no. 92, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows. The unredacted version of the proposed Pretrial Order, docket no. 92, shall 17 remain under seal, but the portions of such document that the parties view as confidential are admitted facts that will be included in the jury instructions, which will be read in open 18 court and filed for public view in the docket. 19 (3) Plaintiff’s motion in limine, docket no. 82, is STRICKEN in part, GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows: 20 (A) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain witnesses is STRICKEN as 21 moot; (B) Plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from asserting certain 22 affirmative defenses is STRICKEN in part as moot with regard to 1 the defenses of “fair use” and “unclean hands,” which defendants are no longer pursuing, GRANTED in part with regard to the 2 defenses of “estoppel” and “waiver,” which were not pleaded in defendants’ Answer, docket no. 25, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1), 3 GRANTED in part as to plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of “claim splitting” and “double recovery,” which are issues of law to 4 be resolved by the Court, see Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1016-20 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and 5 DEFERRED in part to the Pretrial Conference with regard to the defense of “laches”; at the Pretrial Conference, the Court will 6 address the procedures for resolving all issues relating to claim splitting and double recovery; and 7 (C) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain exhibits is DENIED in part as to 8 exhibits, if any, that (i) were not requested in discovery, (ii) did not exist more than thirty (30) days before they were disclosed to 9 plaintiff by defendants, or (iii) are otherwise available to the public; except as denied, plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain exhibits is 10 DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference. (4) Defendants’ motion in limine, docket no. 80, is GRANTED in part, DENIED 11 in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows: 12 (A) Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding the parties’ prior or other pending litigation, including Case No. C15-522 JPD in this 13 district, Case No. C16-4676-JAK-SS in the Central District of California, Case No. 17-2421 in the Federal Circuit, and proceedings 14 before the Patent and Trademark Office, is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference; 15 (B) Defendants’ motion to exclude an e-mail from Rabbi Zev Schwartz 16 dated December 13, 2017, is DENIED; 17 (C) Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of settlement negotiations or licenses offered by plaintiff before trial is GRANTED; 18 (D) Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert 19 Catherine Carr was previously GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the Minute Order entered 20 November 8, 2018, docket no. 66; any further objection to the scope of Carr’s testimony is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference; and 21 (E) Defendants’ motion to sequester witnesses is GRANTED, except that the issue of who may be present during trial as a party 22 representative is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference. 1 (5) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 2 Dated this 6th day of September, 2019. 3 William M. McCool 4 Clerk 5 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc (Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.