Sean Hepburn Ferrer v. Hollywood For Children, Inc.

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFFS SEVENTH, EIGHTH, AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon review of the Complaint, it appears Plaintiffs seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for conversion, clai m and delivery, and common count for money due and owing, are unrelated to Plaintiffs federal causes of action, and do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than November 13, 2017, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv) Modified on 10/31/2017 (vv).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
2:17-cv-7318-CBM-FFM

Case No.
Title

Date

October 31, 2017

Sean Hepburn Ferrer v. Hollywood for Children, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY

NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

NONE PRESENT

NONE PRESENT

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS- ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH, EIGHTH, AND
NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§1114; (2) false designation of origin and association, false endorsement and unfair competition under Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) federal cyber piracy under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(d); (4) infringement of common law trademark rights; (5) unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200; (6) declaratory judgment, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202; (7) conversion; (8) claim and delivery; and (9)
common count for money due and owing.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides: “[A] court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if
those claims are so related to the claims with original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of
operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); see also Spicy Beer Mix, Inc. v.
New Castle Beverage, Inc., 2014 WL 12573409, at * 9 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) (declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim that did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact).
Upon review of the Complaint, it appears Plaintiff’s seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for
conversion, claim and delivery, and common count for money due and owing, are unrelated to Plaintiff’s federal
causes of action, and do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than November 13, 2017,
why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s seventh, eighth, and ninth
causes of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

Initials of Deputy Clerk VRV