United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Order
Requiring Payment of Damages Award (Dkt. 152). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion.
August 17, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision and
Order addressing the parties' post-trial motions in this
case. (Aug. 17, 2017 Mem. Decision and Order, Dkt.
137). The jury returned a verdict for Defendant
on its counterclaims for trademark dilution and unfair
competition and false designation of origin, and awarded a
lump-sum $9, 808 damages award against Plaintiff.
Id. The Court set aside the jury's verdict on
trademark dilution and denied Plaintiff's motion for a
new trial on the unfair competition claim. Id. at
19, 24. Because the jury did not apportion its award of
damages between the two claims, the Court applied the general
verdict rule and found that a new trial was required on the
issue of damages for both claims. Id. at 35-37. The
Court gave Plaintiff the option, however, of accepting the
jury's general damages award as the measure of damages on
the unfair competition claim and proceeding to a new trial
only as to liability and damages on the trademark dilution
August 31, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that it waived
the right to a new trial on damages on the Defendant's
counterclaim for unfair competition.
(Plaintiff's Notice of Compliance at 2,
Dkt. 139). Plaintiff's notice also stated that Defendant
had waived its right to a new trial on the issue of trademark
dilution. Id. Plaintiff's notice read,
in full, as follows:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Idaho Golf Partners, Inc. (hereinafter,
“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys of
record, the law firm of Dinius & Associates, PLLC,
pursuant to the Court's decision and instruction that
Plaintiff Idaho Golf Partners, Inc. notify the Court whether
it would waive the right to a new trial on damages on the
Defendant's counterclaim for unfair competition, based
upon the current procedural posture of the case and
Defendant's waiver of a new trial on its counterclaim for
Dilution, Plaintiff agrees to waive its right to a new trial
on the issue of damages for unfair competition.
Id. at 1-2.
March 27, 2018, the Court entered an order addressing the
parties' requests for equitable relief. (Mar. 27,
2018 Order, Dkt. 147.) The Court denied Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration, granted Plaintiff's Request
for Declaratory Judgment, and granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's Request for Permanent Injunction.
Id. at 17.
8, 2018, Defendant filed this motion. Dkt. 152. Defendants
argue that the Court, in its August 17, 2017 order, upheld
the $9, 808.00 in damages the jury awarded Defendant, and
that the Court's March 27, 2018 order did not disturb
that decision. Def. Br. at 2, Dkt. 152. Plaintiff
disputes whether the August 17, 2017 order upheld the
jury's damage award, and notes that “at that time
there were outstanding claims yet to be decided by the
Court.” Pl's Br. at 5-6, Dkt. 154.
expressly waived its right to challenge the damages award,
and the Court's subsequent granting of declaratory
judgment in favor of IGPI neither invalidated that waiver nor
contradicted the jury's finding on the unfair competition
claim. Nor do the principles of equity and justice require
the Court to set the waiver aside. As such, the Court will
grant Defendant's motion.
were two remaining post-trial issues to be resolved after the
Court issued its August 17, 2017 order. First, whether IGPI
was liable for trademark dilution, and second whether the
damages award was based on IGPI's liability for the
unfair competition claim, or whether it included damages
stemming from the trademark dilution claim. Aug. 17, 2017
Mem. Decision and Order at 37, Dkt. 137. As the Court
noted, the general damages award could have been supported by
the unfair competition claim alone, see id., but
given the uncertainty the Court granted IGPI the option of
putting that questions to the jury. When Defendant declined
to press its claim for trademark dilution, see
Plaintiff's Notice of Compliance at 2, Dkt. 139, the
damage award was the only remaining issue to be tried.
Although Plaintiff had the option of questioning what
portion, if any, of the damages awarded may have been based
on Defendant's abandoned trademark dilution claim, IGPI
expressly waived that right. See id. (stating that