Bio Trust Nutrition LLC v. Bill Silverstein

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Parties are ordered to file with the court an explanation of their positions not exceeding five pages by November 13, 2013. (lc). Modified on 11/4/2013. (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

BIO TRUST NUTRITION LLC, a
Texas limited liability
company,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
BILL SILVERSTEIN, an
individual,

16
Defendant.
17
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-05828 DDP (Ex)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

18
19

Parties are ordered to show cause why this action should not

20

be remanded to California Superior Court in light of Judge

21

Klauser’s October 17, 2013 order remanding Silverstein v. Bio Trust

22

Nutrition LLC, et al, Case No. 13-7343, to California Superior

23

Court.

24

In the instant case, Plaintiff Bio Trust Nutrition LLC asks

25

this court to enter a Declaratory Judgment that certain emails

26

allegedly sent by Plaintiff to Defendant did not violate Cal. Bus.

27

& Prof. Code § 17529.5. (See DKT No. 1.) In cases in which a

28

litigant is seeking federal declaratory relief, district courts

1

have the discretion to determine whether to exercise their

2

jurisdiction to entertain such actions.

3

Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286-87 1995). In considering this determination,

4

there is a presumption against maintaining a federal declaratory

5

action when parallel proceedings are pending in state court. See

6

Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co., 316 U.S. 491, 495 (1942)

7

(“Ordinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a

8

federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where

9

another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issue,

See Wilton v. Seven Falls

10

not governed by federal law, between the same parties.);

11

Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir.

12

1991) (quoting same).

13

diversity jurisdiction, appears to involve the same issue, which

14

solely concerns state law, as Silverstein v. Bio Trust Nutrition

15

LLC, et al., Case No. 13-7343. That case was initially filed in

16

state court, was removed to federal court, and was remanded to

17

California Superior Court on October 17, 2013. (See Case No. 13-

18

7343, DKT No. 12.) As that case is now pending in California

19

Superior Court, it appears that it would be inappropriate for this

20

court to maintain the instant declaratory relief action.

21

The present case, brought on the basis of

The court also notes that Judge Anderson recently remanded

22

Belly Fat Free, LLC v. Bill Silvertein, Case No. 13-3383, a case

23

apparently involving the same set of emails at issue here, in light

24

of the same pending litigation before California Superior Court.

25

(See Case No. 13-3383, DKT No. 23.)

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

Parties are ordered to file with the court an explanation of
their positions not exceeding five pages by November 13, 2013.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: November 4, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3