Leftenant v. Blackmon


Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Aug 11, 2022


Blackmon’s Motion starts with a list of seven errors the Court allegedly made in its Order deciding cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 328). ECF No. 337 at 2-3. The substance of the Motion begins with an argument regarding laches. Id. at 3. That is where the Court will begin. However, before doing so, the Court notes it has no obligation to try to ferret out each argument not made in Blackmon’s instant Motion. See F.T.C. v. Ideal Financial Solutions, Inc.,  Case No. 2:13-cv-00143-JAD-GWF, 2015 WL 4032103, at *2 (D. Nev. June 30, 2015) (“The court is not required to ‘paw over files without the assistance from the parties’ to evaluate their contentions.”) (internal citations omitted); Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al., Case No. CV-20-1752-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 6899131, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 23, 2021) (quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (denying a motion for reconsideration when the movant fails to comply with the rule requiring the movant to “point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought ….”). Hence, the Court addresses only those arguments it finds raised by Blackmon.



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 337) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court revises its prior Order as follows:

1. Summary Judgment is granted in favor of Lawrence Blackmon and against N. Leftenant concerning N. Leftenant’s rights to the CAMEO marks after N. Leftenant ceased performing with the band in 2005. However, Counterclaims III and IV asserted by Lawrence Blackmon against Nathan Leftenant arising from live performances shall proceed to trial on material questions of fact as to whether the claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and, if not, whether Blackmon can prevail on his infringement claims, which requires a demonstration that use of the mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;

2. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Lawrence Blackmon and against Nathan Leftenant on Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief;

3. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Lawrence Blackmon on Blackmon’s Counterclaims I-V as well as Plaintiffs’ Count V, and against Jenkins commencing with the date Jenkins resigned from CAMEO in 2018;

4. Summary judgment is denied on Lawrence Blackmon’s Counterclaim Counts III and IV against Gregory Johnson arising from Johnson’s live performance in the ORIGINAL CAMEO FAMILY on one occasion in 2012;

5. Lawrence Blackmon’s Motion fails to establish summary judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses; and, 6. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiffs are entitled to royalties from AARC and SoundExchange is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that except as stated herein, the Court’s Order at ECF No. 337 is neither revised nor reversed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 349) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint pretrial order no later than sixty (60) days after the date of this Order.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 − 2 =