Free Motion for Leave to Appeal - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Paul M. Levine, Esq. (#007202) 2 3636 North Central Avenue
Suite 1050

McCARTHY HOLTHUS LEVINE

3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 230-8726

4 [email protected] 5 Maria Salapska (#019585) 6 LAW OFFICE OF MARIA SALAPSKA, PLLC 3001 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 120 7 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (480) 626-5597 8 [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. and Third Party Defendant Craig Knobloch

10 11 12
an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM WONG and JANE DOE WONG, JANE DOE BUEHL, husband and wife; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CIV 02-1876 PHX-HRH

13 MARLYN NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., 14 15 16

17 husband and wife; PATRICK BUEHL and 18 WORLD NUTRITION, INC., an Arizona
corporation; ABC Corporations I-X; XYZ JANE DOES I-X, husbands and wives, Defendants.

MARLYN NUTRACEUTICAL, INC.S' RENEWED MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

19 Partnerships I-X; and JOHN DOES I-X and 20 respectively, 21

22 __________________________________ 23 WORLD NUTRITION, INC., an Arizona
corporation,

24 25

Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant/ Defendant,

26 vs. 27 MARLYN NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., an 28 KNOBLOCH,
Arizona corporation; and CRAIG

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 350

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plaintiff, Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., by and through its counsel
Counterdefendant/Plaintiff/Third Party Defendant

8 undersigned, renews its Motion for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's ruling on 9 defendant World Nutrition's Motion for New Trial on damages on Marlyn's Lanham Act 10 11 false advertising, unfair competition and trade libel claims. In its Order re: Case Status, 12 dated February 28, 2008, this Court stated that it "intend[ed] to employ the same damages 13 instructions as were used in the first trial,..." (Order, p. 4.) Given the fact that the Court 14 intends to employ the same jury instructions, Marlyn believes it would be prudent to have 15 the Ninth Circuit decide whether a new trial is appropriate and whether the Court 16 17 properly ruled with respect to the damages awarded by the first jury, especially in light of 18 the fact that the Court believes the jury instructions were proper. If the Ninth Circuit 19 decides the district court erred when it vacated the jury awards, then a re-trial on damages 20 will be rendered moot. In the alternative, if the Ninth Circuit decides there should be 21 22 modifications to the jury instructions, it will be helpful to the parties and the Court on re23 trial. Simply re-trying the case with the same instructions will likely result in similar 24 verdicts. 25 For the foregoing reasons, Marlyn renews its Motion for Interlocutory Appeal of 26 27 the Court's ruling on World Nutrition's Motion for New Trial. 28
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH -2 Document 350 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I hereby certify that on March 21, 2008, 13 I electronically transmitted the attached Document to the Clerk's Office using the 14 CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following 15 CM/ECF registrants: 16 Maria Salapska, Esq. Law Office of Maria Salapska, PLLC 17 3001 E. CAMELBACK RD., SUITE 120 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 18 19 Stephen D. Hoffman, Esq. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 20 2929 N. Central Ave., Suite 1700 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 21 Attorneys for Defendants, CounterClaimant and Third Party Plaintiff 22 ___ 23 Pete Boyle, Esq. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli 24 2901 N. Central, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 25 Attorney for Defendant Patrick Buehl 26 27 28 /s/ Linda S. Ream
-3 Document 350 -

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of March, 2008. McCARTHY HOLTHUS LEVINE

/s/ Paul M. Levine Paul M. Levine 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 1050 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Third Party Defendant Craig Knobloch

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 3 of 3