In re Jacobs
| Decision Date | 14 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 8:17CV362 |
| Parties | IAN V. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. FAREPORTAL, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Ian V. Jacobs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Granting Staged Discovery. (Filing No. 119). For the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion is denied.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges an action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment under Nebraska common law, unfair competition under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-1601 to 59-1622), and deceptive trade practices under the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-301 to 87-306). (Filing No. 1, at CM/ECF p. 1).
On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for recovery of attorneys' fees. (Filing No. 89). On October 5, 2018, Defendant filed a response, therein asking this court to stage liability and damages discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26's proportionality requirement. (Filing No. 97). On November 21, 2018, the undersigned denied Plaintiff's motion to compel and granted Defendant's request to stage discovery. (Filing No. 116).
The court found staged discovery as the most suitable means to achieve proportionality and to efficiently and effectively dispose of the issues of the case. The court further found requiring the parties make a showing to support a finding of liability before damages are considered will not unduly prejudice either party. Rather, staging liability and damages discovery will preserve both the parties' time and expenses and the court's resources. The court, therefore, ordered that discovery be staged as to both parties' claims, with liability discovery performed as the first phase and damages discovery permitted only after the court is convinced that liability may be imposed against either party. The court now affirms its prior decision.
While there is no Local Rule or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure described as a "motion to reconsider," the Eighth Circuit typically construes such motions as arising either under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). White v. Smith, 808 F.Supp. 2d 1174, 1236 (D. Neb. 2011) (citing Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011). Rule 59(e) provides that a party may request alteration or amendment to final judgments, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59), while Rule 60 allows relief from both orders and judgments. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Therefore, the court will consider Plaintiff's motion to reconsider according to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 60(b), when properly supported, the court may relieve a party from an order under this rule for the following reasons:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. "'Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned made "manifest errors of fact, including its misunderstanding of the nature of Plaintiff's claims and its misapprehension of the documents sought in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel" which gravely affect the court's analysis and ultimate holding on the motion to compel. (See, Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 10).
The law-of-the case doctrine prevents parties from relitigating a settled issue in a case. Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc, 540 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Under the doctrine, courts are required to "adhere to decisions made in earlier proceedings in order to ensure uniformity of decisions, protect the expectations of the parties, and promote judicial economy. Id. A previously decided issue should be reconsidered "only if substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice. Little Earth of the United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of House. & Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1441 (8th Cir. 1986). However, the doctrine applies only to final decisions made by district courts that have not been appealed. Id. "The doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders." Id. "Interlocutory orders . . . can always be reconsidered and modified by a district court prior to entry of a final judgment." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., Ltd., 477 F.3d 616, 620 (8th Cir. 2017).
Jacobs argues that under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the undersigned overstepped her authority by "failing to recognize Judge Batailon's prior order as the law of the case regarding possibility of success on Plaintiff's infringement claims." (Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 10). Plaintiff argues that "Judge Batallion's findings demonstrate that Plaintiff has already met his burden to show a prima facie case of infringement" and "[u]nder the law-of-the-case doctrine, these factual findings, based on the evidence presented to the court 'control the outcome' and are binding as to future proceedings in this case." (Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 11).
(Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 11). Plaintiff's argument misapplies a fundamental tenet of the doctrine. As discussed below, the law-of-the-case doctrine solely applies to final decisions—not interlocutory orders.
Plaintiff does not contest this point. (Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 362) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, Plaintiff submits that because "the rationale behind the doctrine was applied in a recent trademark case in the District of Nebraska," it should also apply to the instant matter. See, JS IP, LLC v. LIV Ventures Inc., No. 8:11-CV-37, 2011 WL 13195982, at *2 (D. Neb. Oct. 13, 2011) (Smith Camp, J.).
The court disagrees. In JS IP, LLC the Nebraska district court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine governed subsequent case proceedings where the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered claims II through VII of Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice. JS IP, LLC v. LIV Ventures, Inc., No. 8:11-CV-37, 2011 WL 13195981, at * 8 (D. Neb. Aug. 12, 2011) (Smith Camp, J.). In other words, the court found the law-of-the-case doctrine applicable to subsequent case proceedings in JS IP, LLC because the district court's dismissal with prejudice constituted a final decision; not, as an ancillary matter because the case implicated a trademark dispute.
The instant case is inapposite; Judge Bataillon's interlocutory findings were made under the highly deferential Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) standards. On April 20, 2018, Judge Bataillon entered a memorandum and order denying Fareportal's motion to dismiss (Filing No. 26) for lack of personal jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)) and/or improper venue (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)) or alternatively, to transfer venue. (Filing No. 52). In analyzing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a court must "view evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor . . . . " (the Bataillon Order) (citing Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., 646 F.3d 589, 592 (8th Cir. 2011). "The pleadings, affidavits, and declarations submitted must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and any conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in that party's favor." (Id.) (citing Dakota Indus. Inc., v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc. 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir. 1991). In analyzing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[t]he Eighth Circuit has explained that, in general, federal courts give considerable deference to a plaintiff's choice of forum." (the Bataillon Order) (citing In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2010).
Clearly, Judge Bataillon's initial (and deferential) findings on jurisdiction and venue were not intended, and cannot reasonably be held, to be "binding as to future proceedings in this case." (See, Filing No. 121, at CM/ECF p. 11). But the court needn't go that far; at its most basic level: the law-of-the-case doctrine explicitly "does not apply to interlocutory orders," and therefore the findings contained within Judge Bataillon's April 20, 2018 order cannot summarily be held to control the outcome of the instant claim. See, Gander Mountain Co., 540 F.3d at 830. Judge Bataillon's order was interlocutory, implicating no final decision regarding the merits of this case.
As articulated in the court's prior Order, "[j]udges are afforded 'considerable latitude in...
To continue reading
Request your trial