Franklin Armory Holdings Inc. v. In The Field Defense, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 FRANKLIN ARMORY HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 22-cv-01543-SI et al., 8 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO Plaintiffs, TAKE DOWN WEBSITE AND CEASE 9 ALL SALES, ADVERTISING AND v. BUSINESS IN "BINARY" TRIGGERS; 10 STAYING CASE; SETTING INITIAL IN THE FIELD DEFENSE, LLC, CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11 FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2023 AT 3:00 P.M. Defendant. 12 TO BE SERVED ON PLAINTIFFS AND 13 ROBERT GALLAGHER

14 15 On April 8, 2022, the Court held a conference via zoom with plaintiffs’ counsel and Robert 16 Gallagher. The complaint alleges that In the Field Defense, LLC is infringing plaintiffs’ trademarks 17 through the sale and advertising of “binary” triggers on https://www.inthefielddefenses.com. Mr. 18 Gallagher is the sole member of defendant In the Field Defense, LLC, and the complaint alleges that 19 Gallagher is the alter ego of In the Field Defense, LLC. 20 Mr. Gallagher has requested a stay of this litigation pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil 21 Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3932, because he is being deployed to the Middle East on April 22, 2022. 22 Mr. Gallagher also stated that he does not have any money to retain a lawyer, and he effectively 23 acknowledged that he is the alter ego of In the Field Defense, LLC. At the conference, Mr. Gallagher 24 also stated that In the Field Defense, LLC does not have any employees and that he is the only 25 person involved in conducting the business of the company, which he runs out of his residence. 26 As discussed at the conference, the Court ORDERS Mr. Gallagher to immediately take down 27 the website for In the Defense, LLC, at www.inthefielddefenses.com, and to file a declaration stating 1 all sales, advertising, and business in “binary” triggers.! 2 Assuming Mr. Gallagher files a declaration confirming that he has taken down the website 3 and that In the Field Defenses, LLC has ceased all sales, advertising and business in “binary” 4 triggers, the Court finds it appropriate to stay this case pursuant to its inherent powers. The Court’s 5 power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 6 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 7 for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In evaluating the propriety of 8 stay, the Court should consider “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, 9 the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly 10 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions 11 of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th 12 Cir.1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). At the conference, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they 5 13 were concerned about ongoing infringement of its trademarks. That concern is addressed through 14 the shutting down of In the Field Defenses’ website and business in “binary” triggers. Under these 3 15 circumstances, the Court finds that the equities weigh in favor of staying this action, and that a stay 16 is in the interest of judicial economy. 3 17 The Court will stay this action until February 1, 2023 or when Mr. Gallagher returns from 18 his deployment, whichever is sooner. Mr. Gallagher shall inform the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel 19 of his return date as soon as possible. The Court sets an initial case management conference for 20 February 10, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. 21 Sun Mle 24 Dated: April 12, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 On April 12, 2022, the Court attempted to access the website for In the Field Defenses, LLC, and it appears that it has been taken down.