TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. Richard SEXTON, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant.
No. 10-15005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 23, 2012.
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2012.
Richard Sexton, Nicasio, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, O‘SCANNLAIN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM *
Richard Sexton appeals from the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tommy Bahama. The facts are known to the parties and will not be recounted here.
Before the district court, Sexton did not introduce sufficient evidence to counter Laura Case‘s declaration that the shirts he sold in 2004 were counterfeit. Nor did he specifically call into question Case‘s credibility. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sexton, the nonmoving party, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the shirts he sold in 2004 were authentic. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Tommy Bahama on its infringement claims.1
It was Sexton‘s burden to “overcome th[e] strong presumption” against the application of laches. Reno Air Racing Ass‘n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion or commit clear error in concluding he did not meet that burden. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2002).
Because the record supports a finding that Sexton “has failed diligently to pursue discovery” during this litigation, Emp‘rs Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Sexton‘s request for a continuance of Tommy Bahama‘s summary judgment motion. Visa Int‘l Serv. Ass‘n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.