Opinion
CV 21-7400 FMO (SKx)
10-12-2021
Pharmavite LLC v. Netbus Inc.
Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation of Actions
On February 4, 2021, Pharmavite LLC (“Pharmavite”) filed a complaint against Netbus, Inc. (“Netbus”) asserting federal and South Carolina state law claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, cybersquatting, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. (See Pharmavite LLC v. Netbus Inc., Case No. CV 21-7400 FMO (SKx) (C.D. Cal.) (See Dkt. 1, “Pharmavite Complaint”). The Pharmavite Complaint alleges that Netbus's use of the “NatureM.D.” mark and similar variations in connection with dietary and nutritional supplements infringes Pharmavite's “Nature Made” mark. (See id. at ¶¶ 11-42).
On February 8, 2021, Netbus filed a complaint against Pharmavite seeking a declaratory judgment that Netbus's use of the NatureM.D. mark does not infringe Pharmavite's Nature Made mark or other trade identity rights and that it does not constitute unfair competition. (See Netbus Inc. v. Pharmavite LLC, Case No. CV 21-1105 FMO (SKx) (C.D. Cal.) (See Dkt. 1, “Netbus Complaint” at ¶¶ 34-40).
“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(2). The court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). “A district court generally has ‘broad' discretion to consolidate actions[.]” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that by no later than October 18, 2021, the parties shall file either a stipulation or response, not to exceed five pages, to show cause why the Pharmavite and Netbus actions should not be consolidated.