National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California State Grange, 2:16-cv-00201

Background

Plaintiffs National Grange and California State Grange sued defendants California Guild and Robert McFarland alleging ongoing trademark, copyright, and property-right violations following an earlier action (Grange I).
Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts ten causes of action; defendants previously moved to dismiss and the court dismissed two claims but allowed eight "remaining claims" to proceed.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the eight remaining claims are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case based on judgments and appeals in Grange I and a related state action.
The parties agreed there were no genuine disputes of material fact for the summary judgment motion; the central dispute was legal preclusion doctrine application.
The court had previously considered and rejected res judicata/collateral estoppel arguments as to the Lanham Act, false advertising, trespass, and conversion claims in its November 2016 dismissal order and found those claims involved different conduct than Grange I.
Defendants newly invoked the law of the case doctrine; the court held that doctrine applies only to prior decisions in the same case, not rulings from other cases, so those rulings could only have preclusive effect via res judicata or collateral estoppel—which the court already rejected here.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remaining claims are barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel	Plaintiffs argue Grange I and the state action do not bar the different conduct alleged here (e.g., representations of being the same organization; property retention)	Defendants argue earlier judgments and related appeals preclude plaintiffs from relitigating these claims	Court held res judicata/collateral estoppel do not bar the remaining claims and denied summary judgment on those grounds
Whether the law of the case doctrine bars the remaining claims	Plaintiffs argue the court's prior rulings in this case control and that rulings in other cases are not "law of the case" here	Defendants contend judgments and pending appeals in Grange I and the state action form the law of this case and preclude these claims	Court held law of the case applies only to issues decided in the same case; rulings in other cases are not law of the case and cannot substitute for res judicata/collateral estoppel
Whether the November 2016 rulings foreclose relitigation of these preclusion arguments	Plaintiffs rely on the court's prior order rejecting preclusion for these claims	Defendants attempted to renew preclusion arguments at summary judgment without new facts or law	Court declined to reexamine its prior decision under the law of the case doctrine and refused to grant summary judgment
Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the asserted preclusion defenses given the record	Plaintiffs note no new legal basis or facts from defendants; maintain claims survive	Defendants rely on appellate activity in other cases to justify preclusion now	Court denied summary judgment because defendants offered no new grounds and prior in-case decision controls

Key Cases Cited

Braxton-Secret v. A.H. Robins Co., 769 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1985) (summary judgment appropriate where controversies reduce to legal questions given undisputed facts)
Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 759 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985) (a state-court judgment is not final for res judicata purposes while an appeal is pending)
Howard v. Am. Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal courts apply state preclusion law to determine preclusive effect of state-court judgments)
United States v. Jingles, 702 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 2012) (describing the law of the case doctrine as precluding reexamination of issues previously decided in the same case)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) (law of the case doctrine governs the same issues in subsequent stages of the same case)
Western Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 123 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 1997) (res judicata requires identity of claims)