SWC Inc. v. Elite Promo Inc.

Good Law
234 F. Supp. 3d 1018·2017 WL 550237·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19513
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 2017Case No. 16-cv-07071-DMRCalifornia3,859 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ryu, J.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No.

Pending- before this court is Plaintiff SWC, Inc. (“SWC”)’s motion to remand. [Docket No. 17]. The court held a hearing on February 9, 2017. For the following reasons, the court grants SWC’s motion to remand, and denies Defendant Elite Promo, Inc.’s (“Elite Promo”) pending motion to dismiss [Docket No. 5] as moot. SWC’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is denied.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

SWC is an exclusive licensee of the Pebble Beach trademark. SWC brings this action against Elite Promo for its allegedly unauthorized use of the Pebble Beach trademark.

A. Prior Federal Action (“SWC J”)

On August 5, 2016, SWC filed an, action in federal court against Elite Promo, alleging five California state law claims: 1) Unfair Competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; 2) False Advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et 'seq,; 3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 4) Conversion; and 5) Trespass to Chattels. See SWC Inc. v. Elite Promo Inc., No. 16-cv-04445-DMR (“SWC I”). SWC pleaded federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.