Blendtec Inc. v. BlendJet Inc., et al.

Summary

The court partially granted Blendtec Inc.’s motion to strike and motion to dismiss, and denied without prejudice its motion for default judgment against BlendJet Inc. The court struck MavorCo’s previously dismissed thirteenth affirmative defense and dismissed MavorCo’s false advertising counterclaim without prejudice for failure to plausibly allege proximate causation. The court declined to enter default judgment because the claims against BlendJet and MavorCo involved overlapping facts and closely related defenses, including successor liability.

Holdings

1. The court struck MavorCo's thirteenth affirmative defense because it had previously dismissed that defense as a matter of law and MavorCo improperly repleaded it in its amended answer.
2. The court denied attorney's fees because the record did not establish bad-faith misconduct.
3. The counterclaim failed to state a claim because it did not plausibly allege that MavorCo's injury flowed directly from Blendtec's alleged false advertising.
4. The court denied default judgment without prejudice because the claims against BlendJet and MavorCo arose from overlapping facts and involved closely related defenses, creating a risk of inconsistent liability determinations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether MavorCo's repleaded thirteenth affirmative defense should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
2. Whether MavorCo's false advertising counterclaim adequately pleaded proximate causation under the Lanham Act and therefore stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
3. Whether Blendtec was entitled to attorney's fees for bringing the motions based on alleged bad-faith conduct.
4. Whether the court should enter default judgment against BlendJet while materially overlapping claims remained pending against MavorCo, a defendant alleged to be liable as BlendJet's successor.

Disposition

other