Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rhino Meatls, Inc. v. Kodiak Safe Co. LLC

United States District Court, D. Idaho

June 13, 2017

RHINO MEATLS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
KODIAK SAFE COMPANY LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Honorable Edward J. Lodge, United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         On March 25, 2017, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be granted. (Dkt. 36.) Any party may challenge the Magistrate Judge's proposed recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

         Defendant filed objections to the Report arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in his analysis, conclusions, and findings. (Dkt. 38.) Plaintiff responded to the objections and the matter is ripe for this Court's consideration. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Local Civ. R. 73.1.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where, however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. To the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived it they are not filed within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

         DISCUSSION

         The factual and procedural background of this case are correctly stated in the Report and this Court adopts the same. (Dkt. 36.) The dispute concerns the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant alleging violations of federal, state, and common law infringement of Plaintiff's registered trademark “KODIAK” (KODIAK mark). (Dkt. 1, 36.) Plaintiff filed its Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin Defendant from its use of the KODIAK mark through its selling, offering to sell, marketing, or advertising gun safes bearing the KODIAK mark in any geographic region outside the city of Fresno, California. (Dkt. 1, 36.) Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Report concludes this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and should not be dismissed. The Report additionally recommends that Plaintiff's preliminary injunction should be granted. (Dkt. 36.)

         Defendant raised three challenges in its objections to the Report. The first two objections relate to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the third relates to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 38.)

         This Court has reviewed the objected to portions of the Report de novo. The Court has also conducted a review of the entire Report as well as the record in this matter for clear error on its face. Having done so, this Court finds the Report correctly characterizes the facts, circumstances, allegations, and claims made in this case. The Court agrees with the Report's discussion of the law, analysis, conclusions, and recommendation as to Defendant's first two objections. In regards to the third objection, the Court agrees and adopts the Report's law, conclusion, and recommendation, but finds reason to clarify a portion of the analysis.

         ANALYSIS

         1. Personal Jurisdiction

         Defendant's first objection challenges the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc., 704 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2012) instead of following Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014), which Defendant argues implicitly overruled Washington Shoe. (Dkt. 38.) The Report addressed Defendant's argument, and ultimately concluded that Washington Shoe was applicable to this case and analyzed specific personal jurisdiction under its rationale. (Dkt. 36.) Defendant's second objection challenges the Magistrate Judge's finding that Defendant had engaged in conduct expressly aimed at the forum state. (Dkt. 38.) The Report concluded that Defendant's conduct of “purposefully launch[ing] a commercial and interactive website advertising the sale of allegedly-infringing products” coupled with the knowledge that Plaintiff had registered the KODIAK mark and that Plaintiff was located in Idaho was sufficient to constitute conduct by the Defendant as expressly aimed at the Plaintiff in Idaho. (Dkt. 36, p. 14-16.) The Magistrate Judge found this conduct satisfied Washington Shoe and determined personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant.

         This Court agrees that Washington Shoe applies to this case and that Defendant's conduct satisfies the expressly aimed requirement of the purposeful direction test. Defendant's objection argues its allegedly infringing website is not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.