United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ann Mayo moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Origami
Owl LLC. Doc. 93. Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 94)
and Defendant has replied (Doc. 97). No party requests oral
argument. The Court will deny the motion.
sells low-priced jewelry. Doc. 20, ¶ 13. The jewelry
includes lockets, chains, dangles, tags, bracelets, and
earrings. Id. Defendants West Coast Charms LLC
(“WCC”), Julie Mayo, and Ann Mayo are also in the
business of ornamental jewelry. Id., ¶ 20. On
January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming
design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271,
trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, copyright
infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and unfair
competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Doc. 20. WCC filed
counterclaims against Plaintiff, including allegations of
direct copyright infringement, trademark infringement, common
law unfair competition, and attempted monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2.
Doc. 48, ¶¶ 38-124, 135-141. On February 11, 2016,
the Court entered a default judgement against WCC and
dismissed its counterclaims. Docs. 80, 81.
seeking summary judgment “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). Summary judgment is also appropriate against a party
who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Only
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
will preclude the entry of summary judgment, and the disputed
evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Ann Mayo fails to identify each claim, or part of each claim,
on which she seeks summary judgment. See Doc. 93.
She also fails to show an absence of genuine issues of
material fact that entitle her to judgment as a matter of
one-page motion simply denies Plaintiff's allegations.
She asserts that “statements made by [P]laintiff's
lawyers in [sic] UNTRUE, ” and that “[t]his is a
company full of lies and fraud who is presenting information
to the court that is false, trying to incriminate myself, my
daughter and destroying West Coast Charms and other
companies.” Id. at 1. These assertions do not
show that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of
Defendant fails to cite to any parts of the record that would
support her arguments. See Docs. 93, 97. She
attaches nearly 200 pages of letters, charm pictures, and
internet screen shots, but fails to provide the Court with
any guidance as to meaning of these exhibits, much less how
they support her motion.
Defendant fails to specify the claims on which she seeks
summary judgment, and fails to cite parts of the record that
support her arguments or establish an absence of a genuine
dispute, her motion for summary judgment will be denied.
IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 93) is denied.
 To the extent Defendant's
assertions pertain to WCC's dismissed counterclaims, they
are not material and will not be considered. See