Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02273/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02273-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTA PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TRANSGLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-02273 CRB

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL

Now pending before the Court are (1) defendants’ motion to extend the time to serve a

response to plaintiffs’ request for admissions, (2) defendants’ motion for sanctions, and (3)

plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for voluntary

dismissal of all of their claims. After considering the papers submitted by the parties, the

Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary. See Local Rule 7-1(b).

Defendants’ motion to extend the time to serve its admissions by one day is

GRANTED as unopposed.

Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. It is apparent that plaintiffs’ counsel

did not meet and confer because of plaintiffs’ communicated intent to dismiss their claims. 

While plaintiffs’ counsel should have been more responsive, and should have simply

consented to the proposed motion, the Court does not believe such conduct is sanctionable.

Case 3:05-cv-02273-CRB Document 144 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\2273\orderredismissal.wpd 2

In light of the Court’s ruling on defendants’ motions, defendants’ only objection to the

plaintiffs’ request for dismissal is that it be with prejudice. The Court agrees. A dismissal

with prejudice is appropriate because this action is more than two years old and was filed

after plaintiffs had previously dismissed a previous action in state court. Moreover, it is

apparent that plaintiffs cannot meet the Court’s deadline for proving they own protectable

trademarks (a deadline which has been repeatedly continued); thus, if the Court refused to

grant plaintiffs’ motion for dismissal plaintiffs’ claims would most likely fail on the merits in

any event. Plaintiffs have also stated that upon dismissal their claims will be barred by the

statute of limitations. In sum, plaintiffs have not proffered any persuasive reason for leaving

defendants in jeopardy of yet a third lawsuit.

In light of the dismissal, the only claim remaining in this lawsuit is defendants’ state

law malicious prosecution claim arising from plaintiffs’ original state court lawsuit. As there

is no independent jurisdiction for this claim, and as it involves proceedings before a state

court, the Court will dismiss this claim without prejudice to defendants pursuing the claim in

state court. 

Accordingly, all of plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and defendants’

malicious prosecution claim is dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Sep. 20, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02273-CRB Document 144 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2