Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. King
2:19-cv-00301
| W.D. Wash. | Feb 10, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Universal Life Church Monastery (ULC Monastery) sought reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment order dismissing claims against American Marriage Ministries (AMM). (Dkt. #231)
- AMM moved for summary judgment arguing ULC Monastery lacked harm; the court granted summary judgment in part, concluding ULC had not provided evidentiary support for monetary relief under the Lanham Act. (Dkt. #199; Dkt. #230)
- ULC contends AMM raised a new factual argument for the first time in its reply brief (challenging evidentiary support for disgorgement/profits), depriving ULC of fair notice and an opportunity to respond.
- The court applied Local Rule 7(h) (reconsideration disfavored) and Ninth Circuit standards requiring manifest or clear error to grant reconsideration.
- The central legal question: whether a false-advertising plaintiff must produce non-speculative evidence to recover monetary relief and whether AMM improperly introduced new issues on reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court committed manifest error by granting summary judgment on an issue not raised in AMM’s opening brief | AMM shifted on reply from a legal question (need for actual injury) to a factual challenge (no evidence of monetary harm); ULC would have produced evidence if given notice | AMM’s opening brief put harm and damages at issue by arguing ULC alleged no damages and sought no reputational or revenue damages | No manifest error; AMM sufficiently raised lack of harm in opening motion and court did not err |
| Whether Lanham Act presumption of injury extends to monetary damages or disgorgement | ULC: can recover disgorgement/unjust enrichment without proving actual injury | AMM: even if injury presumed for standing, plaintiff must prove evidentiary basis for monetary relief (damages or defendant’s profits) | Court: presumption of commercial injury may establish standing but does not relieve plaintiff of proving monetary damages or entitlement to disgorgement |
| Whether plaintiff must produce non-speculative evidence linking defendant’s deception to monetary harm | ULC: would have submitted such evidence if AMM had argued lack of attributable profits earlier | AMM: plaintiff already admitted it was not seeking revenue/reputation damages; burden remains on plaintiff to justify monetary recovery | Held: plaintiff failed to present non-speculative evidence of injury attributable to defendants; summary judgment on monetary claims appropriate |
| Whether motion for reconsideration met Local Rule 7(h) standard (manifest error or new evidence) | ULC: the court’s earlier decision was manifestly erroneous and deprived plaintiff of due process | AMM: no new error; Ninth Circuit precedent supports the court’s approach | Denied: ULC did not show manifest/clear error or new evidence requiring reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (reconsideration appropriate only for clear error or manifest injustice)
- TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (presume commercial injury where plaintiff and defendant are direct competitors and misrepresentation tends to mislead consumers)
- ThermoLife Int’l, LLC v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., [citation="648 F. App'x 609"] (9th Cir. 2016) (injury presumption does not extend to proof of damages amount)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 110 F.3d 1329 (8th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff bears burden to justify monetary recovery)
- Badger Meter, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp., 13 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 1994) (awards of defendant’s profits require plaintiff to justify entitlement)
- Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1989) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff fails to present evidence of injury resulting from deception)