bravada yachts lawsuit

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

This docket was last retrieved on February 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER .

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

• Search for Party Aliases
• Associated Cases
• Case File Location
• Case Summary
• Docket Report
• History/Documents
• Related Transactions
• Check Status

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?

Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions .

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

• Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
• Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

• Browse cases
• United States District Court, District of Arizona

Atlatl Grp. v. Unknown Parties

• ON OFF Text Highlighter

Report a problem

No. CV-20-01199-PHX-DJH

HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Commerce And Trade — Trademarks — General Provisions — False Designations Of Origin, False Descriptions, And Dilution Forbidden

Title 28 APPENDIX —FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE —RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 1 — Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Title 28 APPENDIX —FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE —RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 1 — Default; Default Judgment

Commerce And Trade — Trademarks — The Principal Register — Application For Registration; Verification

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — District Courts; Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction And Venue — Supplemental Jurisdiction

Commerce And Trade — Trademarks — General Provisions — Remedies; Infringement; Innocent Infringement By Printers And Publishers

Title 28 APPENDIX —FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE —RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 1 — Judgment; Costs

• Atlatl Grp. v. Unknown Parties United States District Court, District of Arizona Mar 21, 2023
• Subsequent References
• CaseIQ (AI Recommendations)

Plaintiffs Atlatl Group LLC, dba “Bravada Yachts,” Aaron Browning (“Browning”), Robert Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), and Dominic Barnhill (“Barnhill”) and John and Jane Does 1-10 (“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Amended Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Justin Jarvis (“Defendant”) (Doc. 33). The Motion is unopposed, and the time to file a response has passed. See LRCiv 7.2(c). For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice.

Although the Complaint is brought against Defendants Justin Jarvis and Jeffrey Does 1-10, Plaintiffs only seek default judgment against Defendant Jarvis. (Doc. 33 at 3).

I. Background

Plaintiff Bravada Yachts is an Arizona limited liability company; Browning and Gutierrez are its principals. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10). Barnhill and John and Jane Does are all current employees. ( Id. ) Defendant Jarvis was a former employee of Bravada Yachts. ( Id. at ¶¶ 17, 21)

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant for the following claims: (1) trademark infringement; (2) common law trademark infringement and unfair competition; (3) false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ; (4) commercial disparagement; (5) defamation per se; (6) defamation; (7) breach of contract; (8) assault; (9) battery; and (10) punitive damages. ( Id. at 6-14). On August 11,2020, Plaintiffs served Defendant. (Doc. 23-1). Defendant's deadline to answer or defend was September 1,2020. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) . Defendant did not respond or otherwise appear in this action.

On October 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an application for entry of default as to Defendant. (Doc. 23). Three days later the Clerk entered default against Defendant. (Doc. 25). On March 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant (Doc. 33). Although the Complaint contains ten counts, Plaintiffs' Motion seeks default judgment only on the following claims: (1) trademark infringement; (2) defamation; (3) defamation per se; (4) false advertising; (5) commercial disparagement; (6) breach of contract; and (7) punitive damages. ( Id. at 3-5). Defendant did not file a Response.

II. Default Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs applications for default judgment. Entry of default judgment is within a court's discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Before assessing the merits of a plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the Court must confirm that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See In re Tuli , 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999).

Once a court finds jurisdiction, it must consider: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and, (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon entry of default, the factual allegations in a complaint, except those relating to damages, are deemed admitted. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987).

III. Jurisdiction and Eitel Analysis

The Court will first address the question of jurisdiction. The Complaint brings a trademark infringement and false advertising claim. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1). It follows that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. The Court also possesses supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims for breach of contract, defamation, and punitive damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ; Bennett v. Am. Med. Response, Inc. , 226 Fed.Appx. 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant Jarvis, alleged to be an Arizona resident, is domiciled in this jurisdiction and therefore subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011) (“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile[.]”). The Court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and its parties, and it will proceed to evaluate the Eitel factors to assess the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment.

a. Possible Prejudice

Here, the first factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion because Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if this case remains unresolved. The record reflects that Plaintiffs properly served Defendant. (Doc. 23-1). Defendant never responded. If the Motion is not granted, Plaintiffs “will likely be without other recourse for recovery.” See Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans , 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

b. Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims and Sufficiency of Complaint

“Under an Eitel analysis, the merits of [a] plaintiff's substantive claims and the sufficiency of the complaint are often analyzed together.” Dr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr. , 749 F.Supp.2d 1038, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The second and third Eitel factors favor default judgment where the complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief upon which the plaintiffs may recover. See Danning v. Lavine , 572 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (9th Cir. 1978); Pepsico, Inc. , 238 F.Supp.2d at 1175 . “Upon entry of default, the facts alleged to establish liability are binding upon the defaulting party.” Danning , 572 F.2d at 1388 . “However, it follows from this that facts which are not established by the pleadings of the prevailing party, or claims which are not well-pleaded, are not binding and cannot support the judgment.” Id .

i. Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, and Unfair Competition

A person shall be liable in a civil action by a registrant owner of a mark if that person, without consent, uses “in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) . The “test for whether trademark infringement has occurred is identical to the test for whether false designation of origin has occurred.” Adidas Am., Inc. v. Calmese , 662 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1298 (D. Or. 2009) (citing Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. , 518 F.3d 628, 632 (9th Cir. 2008)), aff'd , 489 Fed.Appx. 177 (9th Cir. 2012). Likewise, “trademark infringement and unfair competition claims brought under the common law and the Lanham Act . . . share the same analysis.” 3 Ratones Ciegos v. Mucha Lucha Libre Taco Shop 1 LLC , 2017 WL 4284570, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2017). The main question under a trademark infringement claim is “whether an alleged trademark infringer's use of a mark creates a likelihood that the consuming public will be confused as to who makes what product.” Jada Toys, Inc. , 518 F.3d at 632 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true, suggest Defendant's use of its trademark likely creates confusion. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are the owners of the trademark and designation “BRAVADA” used in conjunction with luxury houseboats. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3-6, 12-15). Defendant Jarvis has created Instagram accounts that bear the BRAVADA Yachts trademark in its usernames. ( Id. ¶ 26). Defendant's use of the BRAVADA trademark is likely to cause confusion among customers as to the quality of Plaintiffs' goods. ( Id. ¶¶ 24, 27). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated their claims for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition.

ii. Defamation, Defamation Per Se, and Commercial Disparagement

A defamation claim requires that a plaintiff show the defendant published a false and defamatory communication and that the defendant “(a) knows that the statement is false and it defames the other, (b) acts in reckless disregard of these matters, or (c) acts negligently in failing to ascertain them.” Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club , 757 P.2d 105, 110 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1988) (citation omitted). To be published, a communication must be made to a third party. Dube v. Likins , 167 P.3d 93, 104 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2007). Defamation per se is similar under Arizona law, but “is actionable without proof of special damages . . . because it is a communication of such a nature that the court can presume as a matter of law that the communication will tend to degrade or disgrace the party defamed.” McClinton v. Rice , 265 P.2d 425, 429-30 (Ariz. 1953) (internal citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant published harmful statements to third parties while failing to ascertain their falsehood or truthfulness. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 24, 27, 38-39). For example, the Complaint alleges Defendant has published statements online that claim Bravada Yachts “is a Ponzi scheme” and “does not use certified welders” when building their commercial boats. ( Id. ¶ 24). Taken as true, the Court can presume these public statements “will tend to degrade or disgrace” Bravada Yachts. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has adequately pled claims for defamation and defamation per se.

A commercial disparagement claim, also referred to as common law trade libel or product disparagement, is similar to defamation. See Luxury Auto Collection LLC v. Walker , 2022 WL 17361292, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2022) (citing 9B Ariz. Prac., Business Law Deskbook § 33:6 (2022-2023 ed.)). Commercial disparagement “involves the intentional publication of an injurious falsehood disparaging the quality of another's property with resulting pecuniary loss.” Gee v. Pima County , 612 P.2d 1079, 1079 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1980). “[T]he disparagement in the trade libel goes to the quality of property, rather than title.” Id.

Speaking to the “quality of property,” the Complaint alleges Defendant published statements disparaging the quality of the watercrafts produced by Bravada Yachts. ( See, e.g. , Doc. 1 ¶ 27 (alleging Defendant publicly stated “Bravada Yachts . . . produces boats that are structurally unsound and have ‘crap work hidden all over' them”)). Taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, the Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim for commercial disparagement.

iii. Breach of Contract

A breach of contract claim under Arizona law requires of three elements: “(1) a contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) the defendant breached the contract; and (3) the breach resulted in damage to the plaintiff.” Nerdig v. Elec. Ins. Co. , 2018 WL 4184926, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2018) (citing Frank Lloyd Wright Found. v. Kroeter , 697 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125 (D. Ariz. 2010)). Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant signed a “Trade Secret Agreement” on October 30, 2017, as part of his employment. (Doc. 1 ¶ 18; see also Doc. 1 at 23-28). The Complaint alleges the Trade Secret Agreement prohibited Defendant from (1) disclosing Bravada Yachts' “proprietary information,” or (2) interfering with its business relationships for a 12-month period after employment termination. (Doc. 1 ¶ 19-20). The Complaint alleges Defendant breached the Trade Secret Agreement in a variety of ways, ( id. ¶ 21-27, 36, 38-39), resulting in damage. ( Id. ¶ 48-49). The Court therefore finds Plaintiffs have adequately pled the elements for a contract claim. See Geddes v. United Fin. Grp. , 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[T]he factual allegations of the complaint . . . will be taken as true.”).

In sum, the Court concludes the second and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment. See Danning , 572 F.2d at 1388-89 . Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled claims regarding: (1) Trademark Infringement; (2) False Advertising; (3) Unfair Competition; (4) Defamation; (5) Defamation Per Se; (6) Commercial Disparagement; and (7) Breach of Contract.

c. Money at Stake

Regarding the fourth factor, the Court considers the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of Defendant's conduct. See PepsiCo, Inc , 238 F.Supp.2d at 1176 . “If the sum of money at stake is completely disproportionate or inappropriate, default judgment is disfavored.” Gemmel v. Systemhouse, Inc. , 2008 WL 65604, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008). “Although ‘ Rule 55 does not limit the amount of money that can be awarded in a default judgment, . . . courts are ordinarily reluctant to enter a default judgment when the stakes are high.'” Mountains of Spices LLC v. Lafrenz, 2023 WL 1069696, at *8 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2023) (quoting Hydentra HLP Int. Ltd. v. Porn69.org , 2016 WL 3213208, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2016)). “A large sum of money at stake may therefore weigh against entry of default judgment.” Id. “Nonetheless, where the amount sought is directly proportional to the harm a plaintiff incurred, this factor does not preclude entry of default judgment.” Id. (citing NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC , 840 F.3d 606, 617 (9th Cir. 2016)).

Here, Plaintiff seeks a substantial amount-at least $3,960,000.00-“due to lost profits, existing clients demanding refunds, and investors refusing to invest” in the company. (Doc. 33 at 6). Plaintiffs further request the Court award punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, although Plaintiffs do not provide the Court with specific amounts. ( Id. at 9). The Court find the fourth Eitel factor weighs against entry of default judgment because nearly $4 million is a substantial sum of money and the requested amounts do not amount to a sum certain or have not been specifically requested by Plaintiffs.

d. Potential Disputes of Material Fact

There are no disputes of material fact considering that Defendant, who has been served, has not responded to the Motions for Default or Default Judgment, and has failed to defend this matter. The fifth factor therefore supports entry of default judgment.

e. Excusable Neglect

Likewise, the sixth factor supports entry of default judgment because there is no evidence that Defendant's default was due to excusable neglect. Rather, the record reflects that Defendant was properly served and provided ample time to answer or defend. (Doc. 23-1). There is no evidence of excusable neglect for Defendant's failure to defend this case. This factor weighs in favor of entering default judgment.

f. Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits

As to the final factor, the Court considers the public policy that cases should be tried on the merits whenever possible. Eitel , 782 F.2d at 1472 . The mere existence of Rule 55(b) , however, indicates that this policy is not absolute. PepsiCo, Inc, 238 F.Supp.2d. at 1177 . Defendant's failure to defend this matter and abide by Court Orders makes a decision on the merits impossible. See, e.g. , Dr. JKL Ltd ., 749 F.Supp.2d at 1051 (finding defendants “failure to comply with the judicial process makes a decision on the merits likely impossible”). The Court is mindful of the preference for resolving cases on their merits, but Defendant has not responded here and therefore the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of granting default judgment.

Overall, the Court finds the Eitel factors support the conclusion that Plaintiffs have established default judgment is proper as to Defendant's liability regarding the claims.

IV. Damages

Having found that entry of default judgment is proper as to the claims' liability, the Court must now determine Plaintiffs' damages. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Doc. 1 at 14, 15). Plaintiffs do not specify an amount in the Complaint, but in its Motion for Default Judgment seek compensatory damages amounting to $3,960,000.00, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees in amounts to be determined by the Court. (Doc. 33 at 6). Plaintiffs further request the Court to issue permanent injunctions “against Defendant regarding publications and communications about Plaintiffs.” ( Id. )

In contrast to the other allegations in a complaint, allegations pertaining to damages are not automatically taken as true. Tele Video Sys., Inc., 826 F.2d at 917-18 . “The plaintiff is required to provide evidence of its damages, and the damages sought must not be different in kind or amount from those set forth in the complaint.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. KTY Int'l Mktg. , 768 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c) . This ensures a defendant may know from the complaint what the potential award may be, and the defendant may then decide whether a response is worthwhile. See, e.g. , Silge v. Merz , 510 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (limiting damages in a default judgment award to what is “specified in the [complaint's] ‘demand for judgment' . . . ensures that a defendant who is considering default can look at the damages clause, satisfy himself that he is willing to suffer judgment in that amount, and then default without the need to hire a lawyer”).

The Court finds that the damages in the Complaint do not differ in kind from those in the Motion. The Court must nevertheless decline to enter default judgment on these claims based on the record before it. (Doc. 33 at 9). Plaintiffs state they are requesting default judgment against Defendant Jarvis for Bravada Yachts' claims against him because those the claims that can be established for a sum certain. Indeed, “[a] Court may enter a default judgment without a damages hearing when . . . ‘the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation.'” Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Chaldean LLC , 2022 WL 2953062, at *6 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2022) (quoting HTS, Inc. v. Boley , 954 F.Supp.2d 927, 947 (D. Ariz. 2013)); Davis v. Fendler , 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981). But “[w]hen punitive damages are sought by default judgment, the court must have independent evidence to support the award because punitive-damages-worthy conduct alleged in a complaint is not regarded as admitted by default.” Alutiiq Int'l Sols., LLC v. OIC Marianas Ins. Corp. , 149 F.Supp.3d 1208, 1215 (D. Nev. 2016) (citing Matter of Gober , 100 F.3d 1195, 1205 (5th Cir. 1996) (conduct sufficient to warrant punitive damages is not regarded as admitted by default)).

Plaintiffs' Motion and the attached exhibits do not sufficiently establish the amount of damages suffered due to Defendant's alleged actions. (Docs. 33; 33-1); see Doe v. United States , 2018 WL 2431774, at *8 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2018) (“In determining damages, a court can rely on declarations submitted by the plaintiff[.]”) (citing Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc. , 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal 2003)). Because “the amount claimed is [not] a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation,” an evidentiary damage hearing to assess the calculation of Plaintiffs' damages must take place. See Rubicon Glob. Ventures, Inc. v. Chongquing Zongshen Grp. Imp./Exp. Corp., 630 Fed.Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2015) (where a claimant seeks unliquidated damages, defaulted parties are entitled to contest the amount of damages). Accordingly, the Motion will be denied, without prejudice, for failure to sufficiently prove the damages requested. However, the Court will refer the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge to provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to rectify this deficiency.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Application for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 33) is denied without prejudice for failure to sufficiently prove their requested damages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Plaintiffs' requested damages. Following the issuance of the R&R, Plaintiff may resubmit their motion for default judgment.

Edit Citation

• Distinguished
• Referencing
• Uncategorized

Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change.

Add Equivalent Citation

Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.

Select Preference

Share the Judgment

Are you sure?

By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us. Leave your message here.

Click here to remove this judgment from your profile.

• Featured Decisions
• Latest Decisions
• Browse Decisions
• Advanced Search

COMPASS NORTH INDUSTRIES LLC v. TAYLOR

Compass North Industries LLC, Plaintiff, v. David B. Taylor; Tiffini Taylor; Bravada Yacht Sales Incorporated; Unlimited Boat Sales Incorporated; Unlimited Houseboat Services Incorporated; Taylor Yachts Incorporated; Chad Orth; Coleen Orth, Defendants. Unlimited Boat Sales Incorporated, et al., Counterclaimants, v. Compass North Industries LLC, Steven James Goettl, Tracey Goettl, Counterdefendants.

United States District Court, D. Arizona. https://leagle.com/images/logo.png

June 19, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Compass North Industries LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Julie Ashworth LaFave , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC & Scott F Gibson , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC.

David B Taylor, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC - Phoenix, AZ, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Tiffini Taylor, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Bravada Yacht Sales Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Unlimited Boat Sales Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Unlimited Houseboat Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Taylor Yachts Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Chad Orth, husband, Defendant, represented by Helen Rubenstein Holden , Sacks Tierney PA.

Coleen Orth, wife, Defendant, represented by Helen Rubenstein Holden , Sacks Tierney PA.

Bravada Yacht Sales Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Bravada Yacht Sales Incorporated, Counter Claimant, represented by Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC - Phoenix, AZ.

Unlimited Boat Sales Incorporated, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Taylor Yachts Incorporated, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Unlimited Houseboat Services Incorporated, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

David B Taylor, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

David B Taylor, husband, Counter Claimant, represented by Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Tiffini Taylor, wife, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Compass North Industries LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Julie Ashworth LaFave , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC.

Compass North Industries LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Counter Defendant, represented by Scott F Gibson , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC.

Coleen Orth, wife, Counter Claimant, represented by Helen Rubenstein Holden , Sacks Tierney PA.

Chad Orth, husband, Counter Claimant, represented by Helen Rubenstein Holden , Sacks Tierney PA.

Compass North Industries LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Counter Defendant, represented by Julie Ashworth LaFave , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC & Scott F Gibson , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC.

David B Taylor, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Bravada Yacht Sales Incorporated, Counter Claimant, represented by Laura Allison Rogal , Jaburg & Wilk PC, Maria Crimi Speth , Jaburg & Wilk PC & Renee B Gerstman , Jaburg & Wilk PC.

Compass North Industries LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Julie Ashworth LaFave , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC & Scott F Gibson , Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC.

G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Non-Party Thoroughbred Houseboats, (Doc 53), by the Taylor Defendants/Counterclaimants.

Defendant David Taylor and Counter Defendant James Goettl once intended to work together in the manufacture and sale of house boats under the name and trademark BRAVADA. Now, they and the companies and individuals with whom they are currently...

Let's get started

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

• Updated daily.
• Uncompromising quality.
• Complete, Accurate, Current.

Subscribe Now!

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

• No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Corporate Social Responsibility

Business Buzz: Bravada Yachts Transforms the Houseboat Industry

The company recently launched Invictus, a $2 million, 3,200-square-foot luxury houseboat designed by naval architect J. David Weiss. Bravada CEO Aaron Browning and president Robert Gutierrez tasked Weiss with “bringing some of my ocean yacht design sensibilities to freshwater vessels,” he says. Gone are the stodgy, blocky silhouettes typical of these barges, which were originally designed by RV manufacturers. “We drew a lot of inspiration from more organic shapes, and feathers and wings… the form should speak to movement, not stasis,” Weiss says. “I love cars as well, so the shapes of this were also inspired by contemporary models from Bugatti and McLaren.”

• Aaron Browning
• Bravada Yachts
• J. David Weiss
• Robert Gutierrez

Related Posts

Flour Power: Meet Hayden Flour Mills Co-Founder Emma Zimmerman

Sunday Schooled

13th Annual Readers’ Photo Contest: Magic Hour

New Partnership with Bravada Yachts Marks Milestones for Volvo Penta

Invictus  marks several important “firsts” for Volvo Penta. The impressive luxury houseboat is the first Bravada houseboat to be powered by Volvo Penta and largest boat in the region to be powered by a Volvo Penta  Aquamatic sterndrive .

“Team Bravada wanted a propulsion system that would continue the Bravada legacy of changing the houseboat industry and we found it in Volvo Penta. We were impressed by the throttle response, rapid acceleration and maneuverability with integrated electric steering,” said Robert Gutierrez, Principal at Bravada Yachts. “In addition, we found the Volvo Penta propulsion package very easy to install and service.”

The DPI sterndrive enables silent and smooth shifting and boasts high engine torque for easier maneuvering. The Volvo Penta system also offers longer service intervals, fewer service items and propeller seals designed for longer life, as well as industry-leading fuel efficiency and low CO 2  emissions. The fully integrated EVC network provides improved diagnostics and monitoring of system health.

Martin Bjuve, president of Volvo Penta of the Americas, commented, “The team at Bravada does not shy away from venturing toward uncharted territory, and this is a mindset we fully embrace at Volvo Penta. We see strong synergies between our organizations and are confident our solutions will serve as a cornerstone in Bravada’s efforts to define the future of the houseboat industry.”

The installation and system integration of the propulsion package was overseen by  Helmut’s Marine Service , Volvo Penta’s Power Center servicing Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and Guam.

“This collaboration with Bravada demonstrates just how versatile the propulsion package from Volvo Penta really is,” said Nadine Urciuoli, vice president of Helmut’s Marine Service. “The power, performance and fuel efficiency of the system makes it suitable for a wide range of applications.”

“Invictus , with massive aquarium-style floor-to-ceiling glass windows and doors, features a host of luxury amenities for lake cruising and entertaining in style,” said Aaron Browning, Principal at Bravada Yachts. “The boat has five staterooms, two baths and two cuddy cabins. There are a fire pit and waterslide on the top deck, stainless-steel appliances and quartz countertops in the kitchen, 10 flat-screen satellite TVs, surround sound and other custom features for the most discriminating owners.”

Click  here  for images.

About Bravada Yachts

A company built on performance and style, Bravada Yachts is an Arizona-based yacht and houseboat manufacturer that produces a series of cutting-edge vessels. Founded in 2010, the company is headquartered in Tolleson, Arizona and serves lake lovers locally and across the country. Bravada was acquired in 2017 by a new dynamic executive team and employs a dedicated and experienced crew of yacht builders and fabricators.

About Volvo Penta

Volvo Penta , with approximately 3,500 dealers in over 130 countries, is a world-leading and global manufacturer of engines and complete power systems for boats, vessels and industrial applications. The engine program comprises diesel and gasoline engines with power outputs of between 10 and 1,000 hp. Volvo Penta is part of the Volvo Group, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of heavy trucks, buses and construction equipment.

Connect with Volvo Penta of the Americas on  Facebook ,  LinkedIn  and  Instagram  for the latest company news and insights.

For further information, please contact:

Christine Carlson Volvo Penta of the Americas Phone: +1 (757) 382 4084 E-mail:  christine.carlson@volvo.com

Jim Rhodes Rhodes Communications, Inc. Phone: +1 (757) 451 0602 E-mail:  jrhodes@rhodescomm.com

Related News

Latest press release.

Volvo Trucks Celebrates 2023 U.S. and Canada Dealer Groups of the Year

Volvo Trucks North America Honors 2024-2025 America’s Road Team Captains at the Volvo Trucks Customer Center

Volvo Trucks North America Unveils All-New Volvo VNL Designed to Change Everything

• Motorcycles
• Car of the Month
• Destinations
• Men’s Fashion
• Watch Collector
• Art & Collectibles
• Vacation Homes
• Celebrity Homes
• New Construction
• Home Design
• Electronics
• Fine Dining
• Costa Palmas
• Reynolds Lake Oconee
• Scott Dunn Travel
• Wilson Audio
• 672 Wine Club
• Sports & Leisure
• Health & Wellness
• Best of the Best
• The Ultimate Gift Guide

Meet the New Class of Freshwater Superyachts Bringing Bold Design to the Lakes

The vessels resemble their oceangoing cousins, but with expanded design possibilities., michael verdon, michael verdon's most recent stories.

• This New 144-Foot Superyacht Has a Glassed-In Dining Room With Ocean Views
• Taking a Bow: How Yacht Makers Are Rethinking the Front End
• Airliners Are Trying Radical New Wing Designs to Improve Fuel-Efficiency
• Share This Article

The term “freshwater yacht” was an oxymoron until J. David Weiss designed Invictus , a futuristic 80-footer that redefines large houseboats. Having penned dozens of oceangoing superyachts for Europe’s leading builders, Weiss was given carte blanche by Arizona-based Bravada Yachts to create a new freshwater category. “The designs have typically been boxy, bloated RVs,” he says. “The good news is their scale can provide a custom yacht experience.”

Related Stories

• This Flying Motorcycle Could Launch by the End of the Decade

This New 62-Foot Solar-Electric Catamaran Is Topped by a Luxe Skylounge

• This Ultra-Rare 1991 Jaguar With Only 78 Miles Is Now up for Grabs

The nearly $2 million Invictus has 3,200 square feet of space across two decks. The sprawling interior, with nine-foot ceilings, includes five staterooms, two full kitchens, customized daybeds and, true to its lake-boat DNA, a 15-foot water slide, while omnipresent glass delivers exceptional water views. Since even big lakes experience minimal wave action—at least compared to ocean swells—Weiss was able to push certain aspects of the design. “Bringing glass so low to the waterline is unheard of on a superyacht ,” he says. “Those kinds of differences let us explore what was possible” within the new category.

The 80-foot Invictus promises to be the first of a new generation of freshwater superyachts.  Bravada Yachts

Companies in Australia and Germany are also launching new glass-centric freshwater designs. Status’s 60-foot, tri-deck Mischief , while boxier and less maneuverable than Invictus , has a sprawling, upscale interior, while a 90-foot, single-deck model from Berlin-based HouseBoatYacht resembles a floating glass studio.

The 60-foot, tri-deck Mischief .  Status

Weiss expects a rapid evolution in the segment, with ever-larger and more elaborate designs. “It’s a great opportunity to move beyond the best-in-class designation and instead design a whole new class,” he says. “We’re really trying to do justice to what  these vessels should look like in the 21st century.”

Bravada is entertaining a proposal for a 120-footer complete with helipad. “We’re also designing one for a music label with a recording studio on board,” he says. “The owner wanted unusual features and colors, and we’ll be delivering that.”

Read More On:

More marine.

This New 131-Foot Electric Catamaran Can Cruise the High Seas Sans Emissions

Asia Just Got a New Luxury Airliner. Here’s What It’s Like Onboard.

David and Victoria Beckham Spiced Up Their Family Easter on This 130-Foot Superyacht

Culinary Masters 2024

MAY 17 - 19 Join us for extraordinary meals from the nation’s brightest culinary minds.

Give the Gift of Luxury

Latest Galleries in Marine

The 11 Best Water Toys for the High Seas, From Electric Surfboards to Personal Subs

Unica 40 in Photos

More from our brands, shay mitchell at the office, a’s to play in sacramento for three years ahead of vegas move, nielsen streaming top 10: ‘damsel’ debuts at no. 2 behind ‘love is blind’ hot streak, early kaws painting apparently owned by fashion mogul marc eckō to hit the auction block at sotheby’s, this best-selling under-desk walking pad is over $100 off on amazon today.

Business | Yacht broker responds to antitrust lawsuit:…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Daily e-Edition

Evening e-Edition

• Real Estate
• Consumer Reviews

Breaking News

Business | judge denies trump bid to dismiss classified documents prosecution, subscriber only, business | yacht broker responds to antitrust lawsuit: we’ve ‘done nothing wrong’.

A Fort Lauderdale-based yacht broker is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that it and numerous other members of South Florida’s yacht industry engage in unfair competition by requiring 10% commissions be paid by purchasers of preowned boats.

Denison Yacht Sales is the first of a group of yacht brokers, mostly based in South Florida, to respond to allegations leveled in three antitrust lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Miami.

The lawsuits claim that trade associations, including the International Yacht Brokers Association, work in conjunction with Multiple Listing Services and individual yacht brokers to require that commissions are paid to brokers for both sellers and buyers.

The first lawsuit was filed by Wyoming company Ya Mon Expeditions on Feb. 29.

The second lawsuit was filed on March 22 by Alabama customer Kip Lamar Snell, while a third was filed on March 26 by a company called Magna Charter LLC, identified as a yacht purchaser who paid a commission.

On Monday, a federal judge assigned to two of the three lawsuits agreed to a request to consolidate them into a single suit.

The lawsuits are patterned after litigation that accused the National Association of Realtors of conspiring with real estate brokers to artificially inflate commissions paid when homes are sold.

A federal jury in Kansas City, Missouri, issued a ruling in October favoring the plaintiff. On March 15, the Realtors agreed to a settlement that’s expected to force major changes in how homes are sold in the United States.

Denison’s motion in the Ya Mon Expeditions case requests dismissal of the claims against only Denison, asserting that the company “has done nothing wrong and is being sued for merely being a yacht brokerage and having had an executive that served on the board of” the International Yacht Brokers Association.

Denison states that it has been “lumped into these broad-stroke allegations” that it has “implemented,” “adopted” and “enforced” a rule requiring inflated commissions of 5% each for the seller’s and buyer’s brokers.

The lawsuits refer to the alleged commission requirement as the “Buyer’s Broker Commission Rule.”

But Denison’s motion states that the broker “has no such requirement, does not require its brokers to be members of any association” and does not “require use of any MLS, nor mandate brokers pay cooperating brokers (inclusive of buyer’s brokers).”

Denison is “purely free market” and its “only major requirements are that its brokers be legally licensed and impeccably honest,” the motion states.

Further, the motion states that the lawsuit fails to make specific allegations regarding Denison while making “vague and conclusory” charges against all 15 defendants.

The only specific allegation that forms the basis for naming Denison as a co-defendant, the motion states, stems from company president Bob Denison’s membership on the International Yacht Broker Association board of directors, the motion states. That allegation cannot be used to hold Denison Yacht Sales liable, because there is a lack of “evidence of actual knowledge of, and participation in” what the plaintiffs allege is an illegal scheme.

Other shortcomings of the complaint, as identified in the motion, include failure to allege reasonable restraint on trade or an antitrust injury.

Denison is represented by Beverly Hills, California-based attorney Christopher Brainard, and Emily Heim of Bayramoglu Law Office LLC of Henderson, Nevada. Heim did not respond to an email on Monday and Brainard said he had no comment on Denison’s motion or the cases against the yacht broker industry.

Denison’s response is likely just the first of a cascade of court filings to follow as the consolidated case seeks class-action status.

Late last week, attorneys came forward representing defendants Boats Group LLC, Permira Advisers LLC, United Yacht Sales LLC, HMY Yacht Sales, Galati Yacht Sales LLC, MarineMax Inc., and Northrop & Johnson Yacht Ships LLC.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore granted a request by two of the law firms representing Ya Mon Expeditions and Kip Lamar Snell to consolidate the three “nearly identical” cases into one, effective immediately.

The judge’s ruling stated that consolidating the cases would “streamline these proceedings and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.”

Moore, however, said he would decide on the law firms’ request to appoint them as interim co-lead counsel in the consolidated case “in due course.”

If the request is granted, interim co-lead counsel responsibilities would be divided among Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, an antitrust firm with offices in 10 cities, and Miami-based Podhurst Orseck P.A., a nationally known firm that specializes in complex commercial and class action claims.

Ron Hurtibise covers business and consumer issues for the South Florida Sun Sentinel. He can be reached by phone at 954-356-4071, on Twitter @ronhurtibise or by email at [email protected].

More in Business

House hunters fear Realtor settlement could make homebuying harder

Real Estate | What’s being built there? 4,000 homes, 2 hotels and lots more in massive Pompano racetrack overhaul

ALS drug will be pulled from US market after study showed patients didn’t benefit

Real Estate | Ask a real estate pro: How I can find ex so I can sell condo we bought together?

This site has features that require javascript. Follow these simple instructions to enable JavaScript in your web browser .

• Open Search

Behind The Scenes At Bravada Yachts

Uniquely built in the west, Bravada Yachts has unparalleled styling and design. In 2005, Jim and Tracey Goettl purchased their first houseboat. 

This 16 by 68 boat had numerous high-end amenities, including a 50-inch pull down plasma TV and a full size galley on the second level. When it was delivered to Lake Powell in southern Utah , people couldn’t get enough of it. In February of 2008, Jim and Tracey were invited to be part of an advisory meeting where they listened to people who were looking for more yacht style and design, while still retaining the houseboat feel. Suggestions were given to them in which they should private label a boat that they could market across the country.

“The economy in Arizona took a hit, but people still wanted the boats,” recalls Jim.

The company offers four exciting models with each detail carefully designed and engineered to incorporate a specific look on the water, but also the latest in safety, energy efficiency and comfort features. Bravada’s engineering and streamlined manufacturing processes are both revolutionary and cost-effective, ensuring the high value the market demands. With an experienced in-house design staff, luxurious style can be found in each model, including granite and natural stone counters, floors and showers, commercial-style kitchens, and designer touches throughout.

Location: Phoenix , AZ

Best-Selling Model or Floor Plan:  22’ X 75’ Bravada GT

Smallest Houseboat to Date: 18’ X 75’ Bravada LT

Largest Houseboat to Date: 22’ X 85’ Bravada Limited

Hull Design: Full Aluminum Hull

Water Applications: Lakes, Rivers and Intracoastal

In-House Transportation: Yes

In-House Interior Decorating: Yes

Contact Information: 602-278-3536/ www.bravadayachts.com

Like what you read?

Want to know when we have important news, updates or interviews?

Join our newsletter today!

You Might Also Be Interested In...

US Boat Sales Surge Expected Through 2018

More Details on UFO Houseboat Revealed

Bike Bug Aqua Bug Outboard Reintroduced

From The Forums: Generators

Did You Know...?

A Promising Future

Houseboat magazine email subscription service.

Houseboat Magazine has created a secure way for you to receive Houseboat Magazine promotional offers without making your email address available to outside sources. All promotional offers will be sent by Houseboat Magazine. We will NOT give out your name or email address.

Yes I want to recieve offers from Houseboat Magazine (Harris Publishing magazines).

Send to your friends!