Miller v. Weinmann

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 23, 2024
Docket2:19-cv-02213
StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Weinmann (Miller v. Weinmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Weinmann, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 RNOevBa Ld.a P BHaILr LNIPoS. 8225 Rob.phillips@fisherbroyles.com 2 FISHERBROYLES, LLP 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 3 Los Angeles, California 90036 Telephone: (702) 518-1239 4 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 Dennis R. Miller, an individual, and Case No.: 2:19-CV-02213-JCM- 8 DJA Omni Block, a Nevada Corporation, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER 11 Edward M. Weinmann, an individual, 12 and Advanced Masonry Consulting 13 Inc., a Florida Corporation,

14 Defendants.

Edward M. Weinmann, an individual, 16

17 Counterclaimant,

18 v.

20 Dennis R. Miller, an individual, and Omni Block, a Nevada Corporation, 21 Counter- 22 Defendants. 23 24 25

27 1 Dennis Miller (“Miller”) and Omni Block (“Omni Block”) (collectively 2 “Plaintiffs”) and Edward M. Weinmann (“Weinmann”) and Advanced Masonry 3 Consulting, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel 4 of record, hereby submit this Joint Pretrial Order. 5 I. 6 NATURE OF THE ACTION AND PLEADINGS 7 A. Plaintiffs’ Contentions 8 This is a trademark infringement and unfair competition action arising from 9 10 an Independent Contractor Agreement (“ICA”) between Miller and Weinmann. 11 Plaintiffs allege that Weinmann has used Plaintiffs’ trademark for the name Omni 12 Block to secure agreements to supply insulated cement blocks on various 13 construction projects. 14 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants were seeking to usurp projects for 15 16 their own benefit at the detriment of Plaintiffs. Even after the ICA was purportedly 17 terminated, Weinmann continued to pose as a representative of Omni Block while 18 interacting with Plaintiffs’ Licensees. Weinmann’s actions were orchestrated to 19 determine the nature of confidential projects so that he and his company Advanced 20 21 Masonry could bid on jobs against Plaintiffs and its Licensees requiring cement 22 blocks and insulating inserts. 23 Weinmann and Advanced Masonry have improperly used Plaintiffs’ 24 trademark to interfere with at least two major projects, namely the (i) Orlando 25 International Airport (“Airport Project”) and (ii) a building to be built at 640 26 27 Columbia Avenue in Brooklyn, New York (“640 Columbia Project”). Plaintiffs’ 1 Licensees bid on both projects and were considered the front runners to secure the 2 same. That is, until Defendants began interfering with the projects for their own 3 benefit by using Plaintiffs’ trademark and otherwise unfairly competing with 4 Plaintiffs’ by purporting to remain associated with Plaintiffs’ business and passing 5 off their insulated cement blocks as the Omni Block manufactured/supplied by 6 Plaintiffs. 7 8 B. Defendants’ Contentions 9 Defendants contend that this is a spite case, and that Plaintiffs are aware that 10 their claims against Defendants are baseless. This Court has already entered 11 summary judgment against Plaintiffs on six of their eight claims, and thus Plaintiffs 12 have two remaining claims: (1) trademark infringement and (2) unfair competition 13 14 under the Lanham Act. Those remaining claims also lack merit, and at trial Plaintiffs 15 will be unable to establish any evidence of customer confusion. Further, the 16 evidence will establish that any use by Defendants of the Omni mark was protected 17 by the doctrine of fair use. 18 19 Defendants have asserted counterclaims for (1) breach of contract, (2) 20 contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) 21 intentional interference with contractual relations1 and (4) fraud. Defendants allege 22 that Plaintiffs failed to pay Weinmann all commissions owed pursuant to the ICA. 23 Additionally, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs knowingly made fraudulent 24 25 representations regarding the Omni Block product’s R value. The evidence will 26 show that even though the Omni Block’s Thermal Tables and Calculations contain 27

1 1 the signature and stamp of an architect, in reality the calculations were simply 2 calculated by Miller and have no basis in fact. Had Weinmann known the falsity of 3 the Omni Block R values, he never would have associated himself with the company 4 or Miller. 5 II. 6 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7 This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this controversary 8 under 28 U.S.C. §1332 as the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in 9 10 controversary exceeds $75,000. 11 III. 12 STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS

13 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 14 1. Omni Block Inc. is a corporation formed in 1993 under the laws of the 15 state of Nevada. 16 17 2. Dennis Miller is the founder and President of Omni Block, Inc. 18 3. Omni Block Inc. is a business focused on concrete building blocks and 19 compatible insulating inserts. 20 4. Edward Weinmann is a resident of the state of Florida. 21 5. Advanced Masonry Consulting, Inc. is a corporation formed in 2018 22 23 under the laws of the state of Florida. 24 6. Edward Weinmann is the founder and President of Advanced Masonry 25 Consulting, Inc. 26 7. In 2006, Edward Weinmann first learned of Omni Block, Inc. and 27 contacted Dennis Miller regarding the Omni Block Inc. business. 1 8. On or about August 24, 2012, Dennis Miller and Edward Weinmann 2 entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement under which Edward Weinmann 3 was to provide services to Omni Block Inc. 4 9. On or about February 18, 2019, Dennis Miller and Edward Weinmann 5 executed a Termination Agreement of the Independent Contractor Agreement. 6 10. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit by filing their Complaint on December 7 8 23, 2019. 9 11. Edward Weinmann filed his Counterclaims against Plaintiffs on 10 September 22, 2020. 11 IV. 12 STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS 13 14 At this time, the Parties are not aware of any facts, though not admitted, that 15 will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary. 16 V. 17 STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF FACT

18 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 19 20 1. Do Plaintiffs own a valid, protectable mark? 21 2. Did Defendants use Plaintiffs’ Omni Block trademark or confusingly 22 similar mark without authorization with respect to the Airport Project and/or the 640 23 Columbia Project? 24 25 3. Did Defendants use of Plaintiffs’ Omni Block trademark without 26 authorization likely cause confusion? 27 4. Did Defendants use of Plaintiffs’ Omni Block trademark constitute fair 1 use? 2 5. Did Defendants pass off their cement blocks and/or insulation inserts 3 as those of Omni Block with respect to the Airport Project and/or the 640 Columbia 4 Project? 5 6. Did Plaintiffs perform under the terms of the ICA? 6 7. To the extent Plaintiffs did not perform under the terms of the ICA , 7 8 was that nonperformance excused? 9 8. Did Plaintiffs perform in a manner that was in violation of or unfaithful 10 to the spirit of the ICA (the terms of the contract are complied with in a literal sense, 11 but the spirit of the contract is breached)? 12 9. Did Plaintiffs make false and misleading statements to Edward 13 14 Weinmann regarding the R value of the Omni Block product with the intent that 15 Edward Weinmann would rely upon those false statements? 16 10. Did Edward Weinmann justifiably rely upon Plaintiffs’ false 17 representations regarding the R value of the Omni Block product? 18 19 11. Was Edward Weinmann damaged as a result of his reliance upon 20 Plaintiffs’ false representations regarding the R value of the Omni Block product? 21 14. Are Plaintiffs entitled to damages and, if yes, what damages will 22 compensate Plaintiffs? 23 15. Is Weinmann entitled to damages and, if yes, what damages will 24 25 compensate Weinmann? 26 27 1 VI. STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW 2 A. Trademark Infringement 3 4 1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fox's Adm'rs v. Commonwealth
16 Va. 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1860)
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miller v. Weinmann, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-weinmann-nvd-2024.