Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Dan W. Goldfine (#018788) Richard G. Erickson (#019066) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 Facsimile: (602) 382-6070 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Grant Woods, Esq. (#006106) GRANT WOODS, P.C. 1726 North Seventh Street Phoenix, Arizona 85006 Telephone: (602) 258-2599 Facsimile: (602) 258-5070 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants and Third Party Defendants

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Meritage Homes Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS Plaintiffs, v. Ricky Lee Hancock, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE RE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT THAT THE TERMS "DEROGATE" OR "DETRACT" BARRED MERITAGE FROM REDUCING OR CHANGING ITS USE OF THE HANCOCK NAME OR SAYING IT WOULD DO SO IN THE FUTURE (Assigned to the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)

Plaintiffs move to exclude all reference by Defendants that the License Agreement barred Plaintiffs from reducing how often or changing how Meritage used the name "Hancock" in its marketing homes during the license period or expressing its intent to do so in the future. There is no dispute that Meritage continued to use the "Hancock" name

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 507

Filed 08/09/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

in advertising and marketing more than $100 million of homes in the Phoenix area for 18 months after Defendant Greg Hancock wrote Meritage purporting to terminate the License Agreement and instructed Meritage to stop using the "Hancock name. Stuck between a rock (Meritage's extensive marketing of the "Hancock" name) and a hard place (Defendant Greg Hancock's February 13, 2004 letter), Defendants want to argue that expressions of intent to change the use of the "Hancock" name constitute derogating or detracting from the Hancock trademarks. It does not. This Court rejected Defendant Greg Hancock's argument: "However, aside from two e-mails dated September 8, 2003 and December 9, 2003, which cannot by themselves establish a breach, Greg Hancock presents no evidence that Meritage breached the licensing agreement prior to the time the action was filed." Order at 8:9-14 (Aug. 24, 2006) (Item # 336) (emphasis added). Basically, Defendant Greg Hancock theorizes that the "derogate" and "detract" language in the License Agreement placed affirmative duties on Meritage (1) not to express internally an intent to discontinue its use of the "Hancock" name and (2) to use the "Hancock" name in some specified manner such as making sales over some imaginary threshold quantity1 of homes. The License Agreement, however, says no such thing. If the parties intended to set a minimum use threshold for the mark, why doesn't the License Agreement say so? Hancock also cites no legal authority for this proposition. For good reason, the terms "derogate" and "detract" in the trademark context involve the sale of inferior or different goods impugning the reputation of the mark or conflicting with the mark and not the sale of fewer goods than a mark holder might desire. See, e.g., Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 636 (1st Cir. 1992); Susserv. Carvel Corp., 332 F.2d 505, 519-20 (2d Cir. 1964); GE v. Alumpa Coal Co., 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9197, *3-4 (D. Mass. 1979) and cases cited therein. This use of the "derogation" is also consistent with their general use in tort law. See, e.g., Nat'l Bd. for Certification of Occupational Therapy v. American Occupational Therapy Ass'n, 24 F.Supp.2d 494, 511 (D. Md. 1998). 1 Defendants have never alleged or asserted that the Hancock homes built and sold by the Plaintiffs were of low or lower quality or somehow defamed the Hancock name.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 507- 2 - Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 4

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

In this light, an order in limine barring Defendants from arguing that the terms "derogate" and "detract" in the License Agreement placed affirmative duties on Meritage (1) not to express internally an intent to discontinue its use of the "Hancock" name and (2) to use the "Hancock" name in some specified manner such as making sales over some imaginary threshold quantity of homes is appropriate. Argument and introduction of evidence to the contrary, in front of the jury, will have the effect of circumventing this Court's August 24, 2006 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request such an order in limine. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of August, 2007. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

By s/ Dan W. Goldfine Dan W. Goldfine Richard G. Erickson Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Attorneys for Meritage and

By s/ Grant Woods Grant Woods, Esq. GRANT WOODS, P.C. 1726 North Seventh Street Phoenix, Arizona 85006 Attorneys for Meritage

Document 507- 3 - Filed 08/09/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 9, 2007, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Ivan K. Mathew Mathew & Mathew, P.C. 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 1730 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Rick Hancock, Brenda Hancock, Rick Hancock Homes, L.L.C., and RLH Development, L.L.C. Robert M. Frisbee Frisbee & Bostock, PLC 1747 East Morton Avenue Suite 108 Phoenix AZ 85020 Attorneys for Greg Hancock Kenneth J. Sherk Timothy J. Burke Fennemore Craig, P.C. 3003 N. Central Ave. Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Attorneys for Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. in State Court Action s/ Jessica Araujo

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2032570

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 507- 4 - Filed 08/09/2007

Page 4 of 4