Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Pep Research, LLC ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 11 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION LLC, an No. 19-55651
Arizona Limited Liability Company,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PEP RESEARCH, LLC, DBA
International Peptide, a Texas Limited
Liability Company; FRED REYNDERS,
an individual,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
BRIAN REYNDERS, an individual; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted May 7, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,***
District Judge.
PEP Research, LLC and Fred Reynders (collectively, PEP) prevailed at
summary judgment, defeating Nutrition Distribution LLC’s claim for violation of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. The district court subsequently denied
PEP’s motion for attorneys’ fees. PEP now appeals only the denial of fees. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties
are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to resolve the issues on
appeal.
The Lanham Act allows a district court to award attorneys’ fees to a
prevailing party only in “exceptional cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Whether a case
is exceptional depends on the totality of the circumstances, considering a number
of nonexclusive factors such as frivolousness, motivation, objective
unreasonableness of the facts or legal theories, and the need to compensate the
prevailing party or deter the losing party. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
& Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014); SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar
Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying PEP’s motion for
attorneys’ fees. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S.
559, 563–64 (2014). Although PEP ultimately prevailed at summary judgment, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the record evidence
did not support the conclusion that Nutrition Distribution brought its claim in bad
faith or with improper motivation. Nor was Nutrition Distribution’s failure to
carry its burden at summary judgment sufficient to indicate that its Lanham Act
claim was frivolous or objectively unreasonable. See, e.g., Seltzer v. Green Day,
Inc., 725 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013). Because none of those factors, nor the
totality of the circumstances, indicates that this was an exceptional case, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award attorneys’ fees to
compensate PEP or deter Nutrition Distribution.
AFFIRMED.
3