Andrew Leahy v. Nutribullet, LLC

O [8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ANDREW LEAHY, an individual ) Case No. 2:19-cv-07376-DDP (SSx) ) [12] Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING CROSS13 ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 14 v. ) DISMISS THE FIRST TWO CLAIMS ) FOR RELIEF OF THE CROSS-CLAIM 15 NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., et al., ) OF CROSS-CLAIMANTS 16 ) NUTRIBULLET, LLC AND CAPITAL Defendants. ) BRANDS, LLC 17 ) ) 18 [Dkt. 78] ) [20] Presently before the court is Cross-Def en dant Jazzer Shack, LLC (“Cross- Defendant” or “Jazzer Shack”)’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claimants Nutribullet, LLC [22] a nd Capital Brands, LLC (collectively, “Cross -C laimants” or “Nutribullet”)’s First Two Claims for relief. (Dkt. 78, Mot. to Dismiss (“ MT D”).) Having considered the [24] submissions of the parties, the court DENIES th e motion and adopts the following order. 25 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Andrew Leahy (“Plaintiff”) brought an underlying product liability [26] 27 action against Defendants Nutribullet, LLC; Capital Brands, LLC; Homeland and Jazzer Shack, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). (Dkt. 9, First Amended Compl. [1] (“FAC”).) Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when using Defendants’ product, the [2] Nutribullet 600 blender. (Id. ¶ 9 “Subject Blender”.) Plaintiff alleged that he “received [3] the [Subject Blender] as a gift from a friend who purchased the blender on June 29, 2016 [4] on Amazon.com . . . from Defendant Jazzer Shack, a third-party seller who utilized [5] Amazon.com’s marketplace to distribute various products to potential buyers all over the [6] world.” (Id. ¶ 10.) [7] Nutribullet subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Jazzer Shack [8] “purchased, imported, acquired, offered for sale, sold, and/or otherwise dealt in [9] 10 counterfeit NutriBullet® products and accessories that infringe upon Cross-Claimants’ 11 intellectual property rights.” (Dkt. 50, Cross-Compl. ¶ 25.) Specifically, Nutribullet 12 alleges that the Subject Blender in the underlying Complaint, which Plaintiff alleged to 13 have caused him injuries, is a “counterfeit unit that was not produced or sold by 14 [Nutribullet].” (Id. ¶ 37.) Nutribullet alleges that by the sale of the subject Nutribullet 15 Blender and others, “[Jazzer Shack] violated and continue[s] to violate Cross-Claimants’ 16 exclusive intellectual property rights.” (Id. ¶ 38.) 17 The Cross-Complaint raises the following causes of action: (1) equitable 18 indemnity; (2) declaratory relief; (3) patent infringement; (4) trademark counterfeiting 19 and infringement; (5) trademark infringement and unfair competition; (6) false 20 designation of origin; (7) common law trademark infringement; (8) statutory unfair 21 competition and false advertising; and (9) copyright infringement. (See Cross-Compl.) 22 Jazzer Shack now moves to dismiss the first and second causes of action. (MTD.) 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains “sufficient factual 25 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 27 When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must “accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” [1] Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Although a complaint need not include [2] “detailed factual allegations,” it must offer “more than an unadorned, the-defendant3 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . Conclusory allegations or [4] allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion “are not entitled to the [5] assumption of truth.” Id. at 679 . In other words, a pleading that merely offers “labels [6] and conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements,” or “naked assertions” will not [7] be sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 678 (citations and [8] internal quotation marks omitted). [9] 10 “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 11 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.” [12] Id. at 679 . Plaintiffs must allege “plausible grounds to infer” that their claims rise “above 13 the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556 . “Determining whether a complaint 14 states a plausible claim for relief” is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing 15 court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 . 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Jazzer Shack moves to dismiss Nutribullet’s first and second causes of action for 18 equitable indemnity and the second cause of action for declaratory relief that Nutribullet 19 is entitled to equitable relief. (See MTD.) Jazzer Shack argues that “if in fact [Nutribullet] 20 [is] correct and the blender in question was not a genuine product designed, 21 manufactured and marketed by them, then [Nutribullet] can have no possible liability to 22 plaintiff and thus no claim against Jazzer Shack for equitable indemnity.” (Id. at 2-3.) 23 Jazzer Shack then argues, alternatively, that “if the product that injured plaintiff was a 24 genuine product . . . by [Nutribullet], then, under the holding in Bailey, Jazzer Shack, as 25 the retailer, could not be liable in equitable indemnity to [Nutribullet], which designed, 26 manufactured and marketed the offending blender. (Id. at 3:3-7 (citing Bailey v. Safeway, 27 Inc., 199 Cal. App. 4th 206 (2011)). “Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek [1] apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability [2] so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’” Gem Developers [3] v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc., 213 Cal. App. 3d 419, 426 (1989) (emphasis omitted) [4] (quoting American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578, 597 (1978)). “The [5] right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf.” 6 Bailey, 199 Cal. App. 4th at 212. In a product liability action, notwithstanding a [7] defectively manufactured product, a retailer may also be liable to a plaintiff for the [8] retailer’s acts or omissions. See id. at 214 . Therefore, a manufacturer may seek equitable [9] 10 indemnity against a retailer who is independently at fault for plaintiff’s injuries. Safeway 11 Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart, 21 Cal. 3d 322, 325-26 (1978); Bailey, 199 Cal. App. at 215. 12 First, Jazzer Shack appears to argue that Nutribullet’s equitable indemnity claim is 13 inconsistent with the allegations that the Subject Blender is a counterfeit. (MTD at 2-3.) 14 However, Nutribullet is entitled to allege equitable indemnity as an alternative theory of 15 liability. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3) (“A party may state as many separate claims or 16 defenses as it has, regardless of inconsistency.”) Therefore, at the pleading stage, 17 Nutribullet may pursue an equitable indemnity claim even if it is inconsistent with the 18 counterfeiting claim. 19 Second, Jazzer Shack’s reliance on Bailey at the pleading stage is misplaced. In 20 Bailey, the California Court of Appeals rejected the manufacturer’s equitable indemnity 21 claim against a retailer because a jury had found that the retailer was not “negligent or 22 independently at fault, but found to be liable solely under the strict liability theory of 23 design defect.” Bailey, 199 Cal. App. 4th at 215 . Unlike in Bailey, there is no jury finding 24 at this stage. Accordingly, at this stage, Nutribullet, the manufacturer, may pursue a 25 claim for equitable indemnity against Jazzer Shack, the retailer. Whether the 26 manufacturer ultimately succeeds in showing that the retailer was independently 27 negligent or at fault cannot be determined at the pleading stage. The court concludes that the first and second causes of action are sufficiently pled. [1] IV. CONCLUSION [2] The court denies the Motion to Dismiss the first and second causes of action. [3] 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. [5] 6 Dated: March 12, 2021 [7] 8 ___________________________________ 9 DEAN D. PREGERSON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE