MShift, Inc. v. Digital Insight Corporation et al

Filing 341

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMITTING ALL REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 18, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2010)

Download PDF
MShift, Inc. v. Digital Insight Corporation et al Doc. 341 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, COMMUNITY TRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Louisiana corporation, and COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, a Louisiana corporation, MOBILE MONEY VENTURES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability corporation, MERITRUST CREDIT UNION, a Kansas corporation, PROFESSIONAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, an Indiana corporation, SANFORD INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, a Maine corporation, FORT WORTH COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, a Texas corporation, USE CREDIT UNION, a California corporation, GATE CITY BANK, A Minnesota corporation, BUSEY BANK, an Illinois corporation, DENSION STATE BANK, a Kansas corporation, FIDELITY BANK, a Massachusetts corporation, FIRST INTERNET BANK OF INDIANA, an Indiana corporation, and VISION BANK, a Florida corporation, Defendants, and SK C&C CO., LTD., Defendant-Intervenor. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS-IN-REPLY. / No. C 10-00710 WHA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMITTING ALL REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS TO STATE COURT / Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The undersigned judge has reviewed the parties' responses to the order to show cause why the remaining state law claims should not be dismissed without prejudice and remitted to state court. Both sides agree that the undersigned judge has discretion to remit the remaining claims to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) now that all federal claims and counterclaims have been either resolved or dismissed. The only argument presented by plaintiff to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is that some of the state claims might potentially require resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law. The presence of underlying federal issues or affirmative defenses arising under federal law, however, are insufficient to grant original federal jurisdiction. Given the early resolution of the federal claims in this dispute, the undersigned judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Accordingly, all remaining state law claims, counterclaims, and counterclaims-in-reply in this action are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and REMITTED to state court. Judgment will be entered accordingly. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?