NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION LLC v. Brian Reynders, an individual; et al., Defendants. (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

PEP Research, LLC and Fred Reynders (collectively, PEP) prevailed at summary judgment, defeating Nutrition Distribution LLC’s claim for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. The district court subsequently denied PEP’s motion for attorneys’ fees. PEP now appeals only the denial of fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.

The Lanham Act allows a district court to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party only in “exceptional cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Whether a case is exceptional depends on the totality of the circumstances, considering a number of nonexclusive factors such as frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness of the facts or legal theories, and the need to compensate the prevailing party or deter the losing party. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014); SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying PEP’s motion for attorneys’ fees. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563–64, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014). Although PEP ultimately prevailed at summary judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the record evidence did not support the conclusion that Nutrition Distribution brought its claim in bad faith or with improper motivation. Nor was Nutrition Distribution’s failure to carry its burden at summary judgment sufficient to indicate that its Lanham Act claim was frivolous or objectively unreasonable. See, e.g., Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013). Because none of those factors, nor the totality of the circumstances, indicates that this was an exceptional case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award attorneys’ fees to compensate PEP or deter Nutrition Distribution.

AFFIRMED.