Black v. Irving Materials, Inc.

Background

Jeffery Dean Black sued Irving Materials, Inc. Black sought a declaration that he lacked bad faith and therefore had not violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) concerning the imi.com domain name. Black also initially claimed that Irving had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking, but the court previously granted summary judgment for Irving on that claim.

Irving brought counterclaims alleging that Black had committed cybersquatting under the ACPA and seeking a declaration that Black violated the Act. Black raised, among other defenses, the ACPA’s safe-harbor protection for good-faith conduct and laches, a legal defense based on unreasonable delay.

After a three-day jury trial, the jury found in its advisory capacity that Black proved he did not violate the ACPA and that Irving did not prove its cybersquatting counterclaim. The latter finding also resolved Irving’s related request for declaratory relief. The court later found that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence, found that Black proved his declaratory-relief claim, enjoined Irving from efforts to force Black to transfer imi.com, and directed entry of judgment for Black. The court did not make findings about Black’s safe-harbor or laches defenses.

Black’s Motion

Black moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) for additional findings that he had proved both defenses barred Irving’s cybersquatting counterclaim. Black said he sought the findings solely to assist review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit if Irving appealed the verdict or judgment.

Rule 52(b) allows a court to amend or add findings after judgment. The opinion explains that the rule is principally meant to correct important factual findings, clear legal or factual errors, or address newly discovered evidence or controlling legal authority; it is not a vehicle for obtaining a rehearing or advisory statements.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court denied Black’s motion for two independent reasons. First, Black did not identify a clear legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, or controlling legal authority supporting additional findings. The defenses had been available and raised at trial, and Black was instead asking the court to draw further legal conclusions from the trial evidence.

Second, the proposed findings were immaterial to the outcome. Irving had failed to prove its counterclaims by a preponderance of the evidence, so any defenses Black might have had to those counterclaims were irrelevant to the judgment. The court also noted that Irving stated it would not appeal, which undermined Black’s stated reason for seeking the additional findings.

Judge Lucy H. Koh therefore denied Black’s motion for additional findings. The opinion did not decide whether Black’s safe-harbor or laches defenses would have barred Irving’s counterclaim.