Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01543/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01543-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

18-CV-1543-CAB-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTICANCER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PDOX, INC., dba CERTIS ONCOLOGY 

SOLUTIONS, and PETER ELLMAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-1543-CAB-MDD

ORDER DECLINING 

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 

OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS

[Doc. No. 17.]

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 6, 2018 with a complaint asserting federal 

claims for trademark infringement and for false designation of origin arising out of 

Defendants’ alleged use of Plaintiff’s “PDOX” registered trademark. The original 

complaint also asserted five state law claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged theft of 

Plaintiff’s tumor bank. The original complaint asserted jurisdiction based on federal 

question and diversity, but also alleged facts demonstrating that there is no actual diversity 

among the parties because both Plaintiff and at least one if not both Defendants are citizens 

of California.

Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint and, following a hearing, the 

Court granted the motion with respect to the federal claims, declined supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on November 4, 2018. The FAC 

removes all allegations of infringement and misappropriation of the PDOX mark and now 

alleges that Defendants infringed and misappropriated an “HDRA” trademark, an 

“AngioMouse” trademark, and an “Angiomouse” service mark. 

Case 3:18-cv-01543-CAB-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1543-CAB-MDD

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

Although the FAC again asserts subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a) on the basis of diversity, the face of the FAC reflects that the Court lacks diversity 

because both Plaintiff and one if not both Defendants are citizens of California. Thus, the 

only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims is supplemental 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Section 1367(a) grants federal courts 

supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are “so related to claims in the action within 

such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 

III of the United States Constitution.”

Plaintiff’s state law claims do not satisfy this requirement because they have little to 

no relationship to the federal trademark claims over which this Court has original 

jurisdiction. Indeed, the mere fact that Plaintiff was able to substitute entirely different 

trademark claims in the FAC while asserting the same five state law claims demonstrates 

that there is no relationship between the federal and state claims. Regardless, even 

assuming the Court is permitted exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the five state law 

claims, it is not required to do so. Section 1367(c) expressly provides that district courts 

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under any of the following 

circumstances:

(1) The claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law;

(2) The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which 

the district court has original jurisdiction;

(3) The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction; or

(4) In exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for 

declining jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it 

is informed by the Gibbs[

1

] values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri 

 

1 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).

Case 3:18-cv-01543-CAB-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1543-CAB-MDD

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

v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

A district court is not required to articulate any reasons for dismissing state-law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)-(3). San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of L.A., 159 F.3d 

470, 478–79 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, even if there is some tenuous relationship between the state law claims and the 

federal trademark claims, the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal 

claims. The abandonment of the original trademark claims in favor of entirely new 

trademark claims and the complete lack of background allegations related to the trademark 

claims indicates to the Court that the trademark claims are not the focus of this dispute and 

are merely a method for grabbing a jurisdictional toehold in federal court. “Put another 

way, if said state law claims remain joined with the federal claim herein, the ‘federal tail’ 

will ‘wag what is in substance a state dog.’” Wong v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (USA), No. C07-2446 MMC, 2009 WL 151014, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2009) (citing DeAsencio v. 

Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3rd Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, the Court declines to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims three through seven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(1) and (2).

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Claims three through seven of the FAC are DISMISSED without prejudice to 

refiling in state court;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [Doc. No. 17] is 

DENIED AS MOOT; and

3. Defendants shall file their answer(s) to the remaining claims in the FAC on or 

before January 29, 2019. 

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01543-CAB-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3