Bierman v. Toshiba Corporation et al
Filing
30
ORDER by Judge Hamilton finding as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
BRUCE BIERMAN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO REMAND
TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-5375 PJH
Defendant(s).
_______________________________/
12
13
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand the above-entitled action to the
14
Superior Court of California, County of Marin. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully
15
considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the
16
motion.
17
Plaintiff Bruce Bierman (“Bierman”) argues that this case should be remanded for
18
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. There is a “strong presumption” against removal
19
jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of
20
establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal.
21
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Doubts as to removability
22
are resolved in favor of remanding the case to state court. Matheson v. Progressive
23
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
24
Bierman originally filed the complaint in Marin County Superior Court in July 2010,
25
against defendants Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba Corp.”) and Toshiba America
26
Information Systems (“TAIS”). TAIS removed the case to this court in September 2010 as
27
case No. C-10-4203 MMC, asserting that the complaint “arises under federal copyright
28
laws.” In the notice of removal, TAIS alleged that it had been served with the summons
1
and complaint on August 20, 2010, and that “[n]o other defendant has been served with the
2
[s]ummons and [c]omplaint.”
3
On October 4, 2010, the court, Judge Chesney presiding, issued an order to show
4
cause re remand, directing TAIS to show cause why the case should not be remanded, on
5
the basis that Bierman had alleged no federal claims (including copyright claims) and had
6
asserted state law causes of action only. In its response, TAIS argued that removal was
7
warranted under the complete preemption doctrine, because three of Bierman’s state law
8
claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. On November 12, 2012, the court issued an
9
order remanding the case to the Marin County Superior Court.
In the remand order, the court found that the sixth cause of action for breach of a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
licensing agreement was not preempted by the Copyright Act, but did find that the seventh
12
cause of action for unjust enrichment/restitution was preempted to the extent that it was
13
based on the theory that TAIS made misrepresentations to obtain the Bookmark software
14
from Bierman and then used his (copyrighted) software. The court noted, however, that
15
Bierman had disclaimed any reliance on such a theory, and had indicated that he intended
16
to base his unjust enrichment/restitution claim solely on the theories that TAIS had
17
breached the terms of two written agreements, and that TAIS had misappropriated
18
Bierman’s “trade secrets.” The court also noted that the eighth cause of action for an
19
accounting was withdrawn to the extent it was preempted.
20
Thus, because Bierman had withdrawn any claims that might be preempted by the
21
Copyright Act, the court dismissed with prejudice those portions of the seventh and eighth
22
causes of action that were preempted, and found that the remaining state law claims
23
should be remanded to state court.
24
On November 19, 2010, TAIS filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
25
Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, asserting that because Bierman had filed
26
another suit in this court against International Business Machines (“IBM”), involving the
27
same intellectual property, the remand order should be vacated and the case against IBM
28
should be ordered related to the case that had just been ordered remanded. The court
2
1
denied the motion. TAIS appealed the remand order and the order on the Rule 59(e)
2
motion, and on May 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming both orders.
3
On August 16, 2012, TAIS filed a motion for summary judgment in Marin County
4
Superior Court. The motion was set for hearing on October 31, 2012. Plaintiff filed his
5
opposition on October 17, 2012, and Toshiba Corp. filed a notice of removal the following
6
day.
7
In its notice of removal, Toshiba Corp. alleged that it had been served with the state
the notice of removal (even though it acknowledged that the claims against TAIS had
10
previously been remanded). Toshiba Corp. alleged further that removal was proper
11
For the Northern District of California
court summons and complaint on September 19, 2012; and also alleged that TAIS joined in
9
United States District Court
8
because the complaint arises under the Copyright Act.
12
Bierman asserts that removal was improper. In his motion, Bierman contends that
13
nothing in this case has changed since it was remanded previously, and that he has always
14
maintained that he is not asserting federal claims against either Toshiba entity. Thus, he
15
asserts that there is no federal question jurisdiction.
16
In opposition, defendants argue that it is not true that the court previously dismissed
17
all federal claims from the entire lawsuit. Their reasoning is that because at the time of the
18
dismissal, Bierman had not served process on Toshiba Corp. – but only on TAIS – neither
19
Bierman nor the court addressed Bierman’s claims directly as to Toshiba Corp., and the
20
withdrawal of federal claims and the order of dismissal applied to TAIS only.
21
Defendants claim that after the case was remanded, Toshiba Corp. attempted to
22
eliminate the need for removal by asking Bierman to confirm that he was not pursuing any
23
federal causes of action against Toshiba Corp., and that any federal claims in the complaint
24
would be considered to be withdrawn, consistent with Judge Chesney’s order of 12, 2010.
25
However, according to Toshiba Corp., Bierman would not clearly agree that he was
26
asserting no federal claims.
27
28
Defendants assert that it is only now that Bierman is willing to provide that
representation, and that the court should dismiss the seventh and eighth causes of action
3
1
with prejudice against Toshiba Corp, consistent with the court’s prior dismissal of those
2
claims against TAIS. In addition, however, defendants argue that because (in their view)
3
this court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time that Toshiba Corp. removed the case
4
(based on their assertion that Bierman failed to unequivocally confirm that there were no
5
federal claims), the court should now exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
6
state law causes of action in light of the pendency of the other three cases, which Toshiba
7
thinks should be related to this one based on “[t]he efforts that this [c]ourt has already
8
undertaken in the various Bierman and Intellisoft cases . . . ,” and also based on the fact
9
that if the case is remanded, the parties will be engaging in duplicative discovery and both
this court and the state court will be addressing similar issues of procedural and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
substantive law.
12
Defendants also argue, essentially, that there would be no benefit to remanding the
13
case, because the state court case has only begun – while it was originally filed in July
14
2010, removed in September 2010, and remanded in November 2010, the appeal before
15
the Ninth Circuit essentially resulted in a stay of the case until 2012. The parties did not
16
begin discovery until late summer of 2012, and the state court has not addressed the
17
substance of the claims or set any case schedule. While TAIS did file a motion for
18
summary judgment in state court, briefing was not completed prior to Toshiba’s removal of
19
the case.
20
Finally, defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the order remanding
21
the case to state court does not preclude or undermine the assertion of supplemental
22
jurisdiction now, as the issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district court was
23
within its discretion to remand the case in November 2010, and to deny TAIS’ motion for
24
reconsideration in December 2010. Defendants contend that because of the events that
25
have transpired since then (granting of summary judgment for IBM in Bierman v. IBM, filing
26
of appeal in that case, filing of additional cases by Bierman and Intellisoft, and orders
27
staying those cases pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling), it makes more sense for this court to
28
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case.
4
1
In reply, Bierman disputes defendants’ assertion that he did not withdraw the
2
seventh and eighth causes of action as to both defendants when the case was previously
3
pending in this court. He points to his response to TAIS’ response to the order to show
4
cause, in which he stated that his claim for unjust enrichment was “not premised on
5
copyright or any right equivalent to copyright,” but on the assertion that TAIS “unjustly
6
received benefits at the expense of [p]laintiff” through TAIS’ wrongful conduct, “including,
7
but not limited to, [the] misappropriation of [p]laintiff’s Bookmark products and Bookmark
8
technology, breach of the NDA, and breach of the Licensing Agreement.”
9
Beirman claims that because the complaint specifies that TAIS and Toshiba Corp.
will be collectively referred to as “Toshiba,” it is clear that plaintiff’s statements in his
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
response to TAIS’ response to the OSC must be interpreted as a disclaimer of any federal
12
claim in the case – against either TAIS or Toshiba Corp.
13
Bierman also asserts that the court’s order referring to “Toshiba” must be interpreted
14
as a reference to both TAIS and Toshiba Corp., and that because the court stated that
15
Bierman had withdrawn the seventh cause of action “to the extent it is preempted,” it is also
16
clear that the preempted portion of the seventh cause of action was totally withdrawn, as to
17
both defendants. In addition, he asserts, because a federal court can decline to exercise
18
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when it has dismissed all claims over
19
which it has jurisdiction, the court could not have previously remanded the case if any
20
federal claim remained in the case.
21
The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED. It is clear that Bierman
22
withdrew any federal copyright claims while the case was pending before Judge Chesney
23
(before Toshiba Corp. was served). Based on that prior withdrawal, and Bierman’s present
24
assertion that he does not intend to pursue federal copyright claims against either TAIS or
25
Toshiba Corp., and to the extent that anything remained of the preempted portions of the
26
seventh and eighth causes of action after Judge Chesney remanded the case, the court
27
dismisses those portions of the seventh and eighth causes of action, and finds that the
28
state law claims must be remanded.
5
1
Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Marin County Superior Court.
2
Because the court finds that defendants have not met their burden of establishing removal
3
jurisdiction, and that remand is thus warranted, the court need not address the motion to
4
dismiss. The February 6, 2013 hearing date is VACATED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: January 29, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?