James Rivers v. Skate Warehouse, LLC et al

Filing 83

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ah)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES RIVERS, a California individual,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

vs.
SKATE WAREHOUSE, LLC;
SPORTS WAREHOUSE PROPERTIES
II, LLC; SPORTS WAREHOUSE
PROPERTIES, LLC; DAVID
STUBBS, an individual; STEPHAN
GARCIA, an individual; and DOES 110
Defendants.

) CASE NO. CV 12-9946 MMM (CWx)
)
)
) JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

20
21

On October 23, 2012, plaintiff James Rivers voluntarily dismissed his claims against

22

defendants Sports Warehouse and Sports Warehouse II. On April 15, 2013, the court dismissed

23

Rivers’ claims for violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, fraud, violation of California

24

Business and Professions Code § 17200, and breach of contract with leave to amend. Rivers did

25

not restate these claims in the amended complaint he filed on May 6, 2013. On December 16,

26

2013, the court entered an order granting summary judgment for the remaining defendants – Skate

27

Warehouse, LLC, Filtrate Global, LLC, David Stubbs, Stephan Garcia, and Wade Sutton – on

28

Rivers’ federal claims for copyright and trademark infringement. The court declined to exercise

1

supplemental jurisdiction over Rivers’ state law claims for wrongful termination and violation of

2

California Civil Code § 3344. Consequently,

3
4

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

5

1. That each of plaintiff’s claims is dismissed against Sports Warehouse Properties,

6

LLC and Sports Warehouse Properties II, LLC without prejudice; and

7

2. That plaintiff’s copyright, trademark infringement, fraud, breach of contract,

8

California Business and Professions Code § 17200, and California Civil Code

9

§ 1708.8 claims are dismissed with prejudice;

10

3. That plaintiff’s wrongful termination and violation of Civil Code § 3344 claims

11

are dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state court; and

12

4. That the action be, and is hereby, dismissed.

13
14

DATED: December 20, 2013

MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2