Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01038/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELITE APPAREL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1038 H (JLB)

ORDER DECLINING

SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER

COUTNERCLAIMS AND

DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

vs.

DALLAS COWBOYS, DALLAS

COWBOYS MERCHANDISING, and

DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

On May 1, 2013, Defendant DallasCowboys Merchandising removed Plaintiff’s

state court complaint to federal court, invoking the Court’s federal question

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges six causes of action: 1)

violation of California Penal Code § 496; 2) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations(RICO) Act;1 3) violation of the California Unfair Competition

Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 etseq; 4) breach of contract; 5) fraud; and

6) misrepresentation in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2606. 

(Doc. No. 1-4, Ex. 2, Compl.) On July 10, 2014, Defendant Dallas Cowboys

Merchandising filed counterclaims for breach of contract and suit on sworn account,

invoking the Court’s supplemental jurisdiciton. (Doc. No. 26.) 

The Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

for want of prosecution on July 11, 2014. (Doc. No. 28.) On August 11, 2014, the

Court held a Rule 41.1 dismissal hearing and neither party objected to dismissal of the

- 1 - 13cv1038

Case 3:13-cv-01038-H-JLB Document 34 Filed 08/28/14 Page 1 of 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

action. (Doc. No. 31.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case for want of

prosecution pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41.1. (Id.) The Court issued a written order

dismissing the action on August 25, 2014. (Doc. No. 33.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court dismissed all federal claims and

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s state law

counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Defendant’s counterclaims without

prejudice.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2014

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 Defendant may elect to pursue its counterclaims in state court if it can. 

1

- 2 - 13cv1038

Case 3:13-cv-01038-H-JLB Document 34 Filed 08/28/14 Page 2 of 2