Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—W.D. Va.: Jury trial warranted in Lanham Act false advertising case, (Nov 5, 2015)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

A plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial, in an action alleging Lanham Act claims of false advertising and unfair competition, was granted by the federal district court in Charlottesville, Virginia. Although neither the plaintiff nor the defendants made a jury demand within the time prescribed, the court determined that it had discretion to grant a jury trial. After a consideration of all the relevant factors, the court exercised its discretion and granted the plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial (Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC, November 4, 2015, Conrad, G.).

Background. Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the surviving plaintiff in a Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition case against Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Matthew Tucker, filed a motion for a jury trial. Although neither Concordia nor the defendants made a jury demand within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), the court noted that the decision to grant a jury trial was within the discretion of the court.

Motion for jury trial. In exercising its discretion whether to grant a jury trial, a court may consider several factors: (1) whether the issues are more appropriate for determination by a jury or a judge; (2) any prejudice that granting a jury trial would cause the opposing party; (3) the timing of the motion; and (4) any effect a jury trial would have on the court’s docket and the orderly administration of justice.

Having considered these factors, the court determined that a jury trial was warranted. The court found that Concordia’s claims under the Lanham Act were not so complex that a jury would be incapable of understanding them and, as such, were suitable for a jury to resolve.

The court was also unable to find that granting Concordia’s motion for a jury trial would significantly prejudice the defendants or that the timing of the motion warranted denying it. The court noted that the defendants: (1) still had seven weeks to conduct discovery and more than four months to prepare for trial at the time the motion for the jury trial was filed and (2) failed to explain how depositions that the conducted prior to the filing of the jury trial motion would have been conducted differently if they had known that Concordia’s claims would be presented to a jury.

In concluding that a jury trial would not be substantially more burdensome than a bench trial, the court noted that “while a jury trial may at times strain a court’s docket, the manner in which it benefits the effective administration of justice outweighs the scheduling difficulties it can cause.”

The case is No. 3:14CV00016.

Attorneys: Aaron L. Pereira (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC) for Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. David W. Thomas (Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, PLLC) and Jennifer McVey Thomas (Hyman Phelps & McNamara, PC) for Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC. Joshua Counts Cumby (Venable LLP) for Winder Laboratories, LLC.

Companies: Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Winder Laboratories, LLC

Cases: Advertising VirginiaNews