1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THIRTY THREE THREADS, INC., Case No.: 23-CV-1459-CAB-AHG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING STATE

13 v. CLAIMS 14 PACIFIC MANUFACTURING LLC et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 In its original complaint, Plaintiff asserted five claims – three federal claims against 20 Defendant Pacific Manufacturing LLC (“Pacific”), and two state claims against Pacific and 21 three other Defendants. Because the Court was not convinced that it even has the discretion 22 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it 23 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the state claims should not be dismissed. On August 24 21, 2023, Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause and filed a first amended complaint 25 (“FAC”) that added a federal claim against Pacific only. 26 Upon review of the FAC and Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, the 27 Court is not persuaded that it has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 28 the state law claims because they are not so related to the federal claims against Pacific 1 “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367. Specifically, 2 the federal claims concern whether Pacific is selling a sock that infringes on Plaintiffs’ 3 patents and trade dress. The state claims, meanwhile, concern whether Pacific and three 4 other entities separately and individually interfere with an exclusive contract Plaintiff has 5 with a third party. Whether Pacific infringes Plaintiff’s patents and trade dress, therefore, 6 is an entirely separate issue, involving different facts, from whether Pacific (or the other 7 defendants) interfere with Plaintiff’s exclusive contract. See generally AngioScore, Inc. v. 8 TriReme Med., LLC, 666 F. App'x 884, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that district court 9 improperly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for breach of 10 fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and unfair competition in patent infringement case and 11 that the general understanding of the infringing device necessary to the state claims “does 12 not create a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ because it is simply general ‘background’ 13 information.”). Indeed, that three of the defendants are alleged to have interfered with the 14 contract without infringing Plaintiff’s patents or trade dress demonstrates that the state 15 claims involve entirely different facts from the federal claims against Pacific only. 16 Moreover, even if the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 17 over the state claims, it declines to do so here. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion in response 18 to the OSC, there are more state claims than federal claims asserted in the FAC. 19 Specifically, the FAC asserts four federal claims (claims 1-4 against Pacific). On the other 20 hand, the FAC asserts two state claims against each of the four defendants, and because 21 the defendants are not alleged to be related or working together, each of these state claims 22 is better characterized as a separate claim as to each defendant, for a total of eight distinct 23 state claims. Further, because the facts related to these state claims are wholly separate 24 from the facts related to Pacific’s alleged patent and trade dress infringement, these claims 25 threaten to predominate over the federal claims. 26 In sum, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1367(a) over the state law claims, and because even if the Court had discretion to exercise 28 such jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it, the state claims (Claims 5 and 6 in the 1 || FAC) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may re-file its state claims 2 ||against Pacific in state court and its state claims against the other three defendants in 3 || appropriate jurisdictions and venues. The Clerk of Court shall terminate all Defendants 4 || aside from Pacific on the docket, and this case will proceed against Pacific only on the first 5 || four claims in the FAC. 6 Itis SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 22, 2023 <6 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28