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
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?