Innospan Corp., a Delaware corporation v. Shasta Ventures Gp Llc, a California limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INNOSPAN CORP., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellant,
v.
SHASTA VENTURES GP LLC, a
California limited liability company,
Defendant - Appellee,
INTUIT, a Delaware corporation; et al.,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellees,
V.
HONG-SEOK KIM,
Counter-defendant -
Appellant.
No. 12-16071
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-04422-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
FILED
JUL 09 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Innospan Corporation and its CEO, Hong-Seok Kim appeal the district
court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal of Innospan’s complaint asserting trademark
infringement and related claims (the “Dismissal Order”).1 Innospan contends that
the district court abused its discretion in entering the Dismissal Order. Innospan
also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s orders imposing discovery
sanctions (the “Sanctions Order”) and ordering Innospan to pay certain attorney’s
fees resulting from its discovery violations (the “Fees Order”). Finally, Innospan
contends that the magistrate judge improperly rejected its own motion for
discovery sanctions (the “Discovery Order”).
The Dismissal Order was not an abuse of discretion. The district court made
specific findings concerning the relevant factors—the public’s interest in resolution
of the litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the prejudice Innospan’s
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 The district court also entered default judgment in favor of defendants on
their counterclaims against Innospan and Kim.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

discovery violations caused defendants, the policy that cases should be resolved on
the merits, and the availability of less drastic alternatives—before concluding that
Innospan’s ongoing refusal to comply with court orders justified dismissal. See
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 2002); Yourish v. Cal.
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990–92 (9th Cir. 1999).
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider the
Sanctions Order and the Fees Order. Innospan failed to file timely objections to
the Sanctions Order and has therefore forfeited the same on appeal. See Simpson v.
Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174–75 (9th Cir. 1996). The Fees Order
similarly reflects a reasoned exercise of discretion. The magistrate appropriately
calculated the lodestar rate for defendants’ requested attorney’s fees in an order
that included a reduction in the total fees amount and reductions to account for
block billing and excessive work. See Lahiri v. Universal Music and Video
Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, even assuming that Discovery Order was material to the judgment,
see Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. of Calif. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 93 F.3d
529, 540 (9th Cir. 1996), Innospan again failed to file timely objections to the
magistrate’s order, and therefore forfeited the same on appeal. See Simpson, 77
F.3d at 1174–75.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --