Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00033-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RICOR RACING AND DEVELOPMENT,

LLP,

NO. CIV. S-07-0033 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE

COMPONENTS, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Specialized

Bicycle Components, Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion to dismiss

plaintiff Ricor Racing and Development, LLP’s (“plaintiff”) first

amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) or, alternatively, 12(b)(6).1

 In said complaint,

plaintiff alleges claims against defendant for declaratory

relief, pursuant to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act 

(28 U.S.C. § 2201), and for breach of contract, fraud and

Case 2:07-cv-00033-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2 The Declaratory Judgment Act creates a federal remedy;

it is not an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Before

declaratory relief can be granted, federal subject matter

jurisdiction requirements must be satisfied. Skelly Oil Co. v.

Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671 (1950). Here, while

plaintiff asks that the court declare defendant’s patents

“invalid,” plaintiff does not allege a claim for patent

infringement against defendant nor does it appear that plaintiff

could. Plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract,

fraud and negligent misrepresentation do not provide a basis for

federal question jurisdiction. 

2

negligent misrepresentation, pursuant to state law. (First Am.

Compl., filed Jan. 12, 2007.) 

Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on January 29, 2007,

setting the matter for hearing on March 2, 2007. However,

plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The court therefore

continued the motion to March 16, 2007 and issued an order to

show re: sanctions (“OSC”) for plaintiff’s failure to respond,

directing that plaintiff respond to the OSC and file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion on or

before March 2, 2007.

Again, plaintiff did not respond. As such, the court

construes plaintiff’s failure to respond as a non-opposition to

the motion (E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(c)) and accordingly, GRANTS

defendant’s motion to dismiss. Said motion is properly granted

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) as the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action. The parties

hereto are not diverse, and there is no federal question pled in

the complaint.2 

As to the OSC, the court HEREBY imposes sanctions against

plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $150.00 for his failure to

respond to the OSC. Payment should be in the form of a check

Case 2:07-cv-00033-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 This sanction is personal to the attorney, is to be

borne by plaintiff’s counsel personally, and is not to be

transmitted to the client by way of a charge of attorney’s fees

and/or costs. 

3

made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The sum is to be paid

personally3 by plaintiff’s counsel not later than ten days from

the filing of this order. The hearing on the OSC is vacated.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: March 8, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00033-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3