Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05611/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05611-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIVE STAR GOURMET FOODS, INC., 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRESH EXPRESS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05611-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Before the court is defendant Fresh Express, Inc.’s (“Fresh Express” or 

“defendant”) motion to dismiss. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision 

without oral argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their 

arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby 

GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On January 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s 

motion to dismiss plaintiffs Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. (“Five Star”) and Direct Pack, 

Inc.’s (“Direct Pack” and together with Five Star, “plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint. 

Dkt. 59. As relevant here, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ ninth claim for 

breach of contract as alleged against Fresh Express. Id. at 24. The court dismissed 

without prejudice plaintiffs’ tenth claim for intentional interference with contract as alleged 

against Fresh Express and expressed skepticism concerning plaintiffs’ basis for bringing 

the claim. Id. at 27–28. The court ordered plaintiffs to file any amended complaint within 

twenty-one days. 

On February 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and reCase 4:19-cv-05611-PJH Document 80 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

alleged the ninth claim against Fresh Express. They also re-alleged the tenth claim 

without alleging any additional factual allegations. Defendant has moved to dismiss the 

ninth and tenth causes of action with prejudice. Dkt. 72. Plaintiffs have filed a statement 

of non-opposition stating that they do not oppose defendant’s requested relief. Dkt. 79.

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion and 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs’ ninth and tenth causes of action as alleged 

against defendant Fresh Express. Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint within 21 

days of the date of this order. No new parties or causes of action may be pleaded 

without leave of court or the agreement of all defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05611-PJH Document 80 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2