Seyed-Damon Minaey v. Yazmani Baca et al

Filing 16

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order GRANTING Motion to Remand (Dkt. 10) by Judge Dale S. Fischer: The Motion to Remand is GRANTED. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. See Memorandum for Specifics. (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
JS
Case No.
Title

Date

CV 16-2808 DSF (SSx)

7/28/16

Seyed-Damon Minaey v. Yazmani Baca, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order GRANTING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No.
10)1

Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant Yazmani Baca were involved in a business
relationship to exploit certain designs. Plaintiff further alleges that Baca began exploiting
the designs on his own, without the involvement or profit of Plaintiff, in violation of the
parties’ contracts and state trade secret law. Defendants removed this case on the basis of
purported federal copyright and trademark claims. The complaint does not state a federal
claim on its face.
In order for a state law claim to provide federal question jurisdiction, the “state law
claim [must] necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial,
which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved
balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Products,
Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). “That is, federal jurisdiction over
a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed,
(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the
federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1065
(2013).

1

The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for August 8, 2016 is removed from the Court’s
calendar.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
JS
There is no indication in either the complaint or the discovery responses cited by
Defendants that Plaintiff necessarily raises a federal issue that is actually disputed and
substantial. On the facts alleged, Plaintiff possibly could have raised federal copyright or
trademark claims. But he did not. Instead he has chosen to rely solely on state law
contract and trade secret theories of recovery. That is the Plaintiff’s prerogative as master
of his complaint. The state law claims do not necessarily require resolution of substantial
federal claims because Plaintiff is free to rely on the contract between the parties or state
trade secret law to attempt to limit Defendants’ actions and recover damages rather than
federal statutes that might also apply. The discovery responses, at most, show that
Plaintiff is not willing to deny that he might theoretically have a copyright or trademark
claim. This is different from an admission that he is seeking to enforce such a claim in
this case.
The motion to remand is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 2 of 2