United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
BBC GROUP NV LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant,
ISLAND LIFE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ISLAND
LIFE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Counterclaim Plaintiff
Island Life Restaurant Group, LLC (“Island
Life”)'s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #66. On
September 20, 2019, this Court granted in part Island
Life's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. #65.
Island Life now asks the Court to reconsider its decision to
reserve judgment on the permanent injunction issue. The Court
has determined that response briefing from Counterclaim
Defendant BBC GROUP NV LLC (“BBC”) is
unnecessary. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3).
previous Order, this Court dismissed all of BBC's claims
against Island Life. The Court granted summary judgment on
Island Life's counterclaims under the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125, and declined to address the
issue of a permanent injunction without further briefing from
the parties. See Dkt. #65 at 22. Island Life now
requests reconsideration solely on the permanent injunction
issue. Dkt. #66 at 1.
for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rules W.D.
Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily deny such
motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the
prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority
which could not have been brought to its attention earlier
with reasonable diligence.” Id.
Island Life's Motion
initial issue, this district's local rules require that
motions for reconsideration not exceed six pages.
See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(e)(1). On this
basis alone, the Court's review is properly limited to
the first six pages of Island Life's motion.
Island Life has misread the Court's previous order.
Island Life appears to argue manifest error by the Court in
its prior ruling and asks for reconsideration of its decision
“in which it denied a permanent injunction in favor of
Island Life.” Dkt. #66 at 1. The Court did not deny
Island Life's request for a permanent injunction. Rather,
it reserved ruling on the issue before receiving further
briefing from the parties:
Island Life has provided evidence of ongoing confusion
between the marks in support of its Lanham Act claims, but
the Court is uninformed as to what irreparable harm-such as
lost customers, goodwill, or reputation-Island Life has
suffered as a result of the confusion. The Court is likewise
uninformed as to the balance of hardships that might afflict
both parties following the grant or denial of the permanent
injunction, which would affect how broadly the Court tailors
the scope of the remedy. For these reasons, the Court
will not address the issue of a permanent injunction at this
#65 at 22 (emphasis added). The Court finds it necessary to
clarify that any remaining issues in this case-including the
appropriateness and geographic scope of a permanent
injunction against BBC-should be identified in parties'
Joint Status Report due on October 11, 2019. See
Dkt. #65 at 23 (“No later that twenty-one (21) days
from the date of this Order, parties shall submit a Joint
Status Report as to the remaining issues before the
Court.”). At that point, the Court may order
supplemental briefing, schedule a hearing, or take any other
action that the Court deems appropriate to resolve the
remaining disputes in this matter.
to the merits of Island Life's Motion, Island Life
requested entry of a permanent injunction before parties had
briefed the issue. See Dkt. #46 at 22. Island Life
now uses this Motion for Reconsideration to provide specific
evidence of irreparable harm resulting from confusion between
the marks and BOK BOK's rapid expansion across California
and Nevada. See Dkt. #6 at 5-6. Such arguments are
not properly raised in a Motion for Reconsideration. See
Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may
not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time . . . .”) (emphasis in original).
More importantly, the Court has not ruled on the permanent