Filing 43

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that on or before January 20, 2010, defendants shall file amotion in support of subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiffs shall file any response by January 25, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that removing defendants shall comply with the Removal Order issued in this case, and the representation status of defendant Gary Pawlik shall be clarified by January 20, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 1/13/10. (crt,Smith, C)

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION H A Y D E L L INDUSTRIES, LLC, A D V A N C E D EQUIPMENT S E R V IC E S , INC. VERSUS O R I A N O PETRUCCI, E U R O S I D E R AMERICA, INC., G R A D Y OLSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A NEPSA MANAGEMENT, C IN D Y OLSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A NEPSA MANAGEMENT, J A M E S P. GHERARDINI, K R I S T O P H E R R. BONNEGENT, G A R Y PAWLIK, N 2 SPRAY SOLUTIONS, LLC C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-1518

J U D G E DOHERTY M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA

ORDER A review of the pending litigation, including the motions to dismiss, reveals the R e m o v a l Order (rec. doc. 9) issued in this matter has not been complied with, and there is n o record of service for any of the defendants or any record of the underlying state court p ro c e e d in g s , except for the Complaint. Furthermore, while defendant Gary Pawlik is shown on the docket sheet as re p re se n ted by counsel Bradley Drell, there is no indication in the record that Pawlik is re p re se n te d by any counsel, and there is no notice information available on the docket s h e e t. Thus, the undersigned is unable to tell whether Pawlik has been served with the sta te court suit, or has had any notice of any of the proceedings in this Court.

1

A d d itio n a lly , a review of the Complaint shows the basis of removal jurisdiction w a s an allegation of breach of federal law, copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, e t seq. However, these allegations were made solely against defendants Gary Olson, C in d y Olson, Gherardini, Bonnegent and N2 Spray Solutions LLC, and not against d e fe n d a n ts Petrucci, Eurosider America, or Pawlik. Thus, the Court sua sponte questions w h e th e r it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Petrucci, E u ro sid e r or Pawlik, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). While the Court agrees the state la w claims alleged against all defendants are all related to each other, and most likely the s ta te law claims against Gary Olson, Cindy Olson, Gherardini, Bonnegent and N2 Spray S o lu tio n s , LLC are related to the federal copyright claims against them, as the same p a rtie s are alleged to be involved in both, it is less clear whether the state law claims a lle g e d against defendants Petrucci, Eurosider America, and Pawlik are related to the fe d e ra l copyright claims launched solely against defendants Gary Olson, Cindy Olson, G h e ra rd in i, Bonnegent and N2 Spray Solutions LLC. That is, it is not clear that the state la w claims against Petrucci, Eurosider America, and Pawlik are "related to claims in the a c tio n within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or c o n tro v e rs y under Article II of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1 3 6 7 (a )(e m p h a s is added). Counsel are referred to CICCorp., Inc. v. AIMTech Corp., 32 F .S u p p .2 d 425 (S.D.Tex 1998), for a review of that court's analysis of this issue. T h e re fo re , I T IS ORDERED that on or before January 20, 2010, defendants shall file a 2

m o tio n in support of subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiffs shall file any response by J a n u a r y 25, 2010. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that removing defendants shall comply with the R e m o v a l Order issued in this case, and the representation status of defendant Gary Pawlik s h a ll be clarified by January 20, 2010. S ig n e d in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 13 th day of January, 2010.

3