T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B R UC E B I E R MAN, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T OS HI B A C OR P OR AT I ON , D e f

e n d a n t, a nd T OS HI B A A ME R I C A I NF OR MAT I ON S Y S T E M S , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 15262 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 4 2 0 3 - MMC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a xi ne M . C he s ne y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , D . W . N E L S O N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA Y31 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSU nd er Si noc he m I nt ’ l C o. v . M alays i a I nt ’ l Shi ppi ng C or

p. , 549 U . S . 422 1 ( 2007) , c our t s ha ve “ l e e w a y t o c hoos e a m ong thr e s hol d gr ounds f orde ny i ng audi ence t o a ca se on the m er i t s. ” I d. a t431 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c a us e w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l on the gr ound tha tthe ca se m ay be re m anded t o st at e c ou rt , w e e xp re ss no vi ew as t o w hether there w as an y fed eral su b

j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n i n th e fi rstp l ace fo r th e d i stri ctt o ex erci se f e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe tw o c l a i m s w hi c h w e r e di s m i s s e d. 2 T hi s i s a n appe a l by de f e nda nt - appe l l a ntT os hi ba A m e r i c a I nf or m a t i on S ys t em s ( “ T oshi ba”) of the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderre m andi ng the ca se t o st at e c ou rt a nd the c our t ’ s s ubs e que ntde ni a l of T os hi ba ’ s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. T he pa r t i e s a r e f

a m i l i a rw i th the f

a c t s unde r l y i ng the appe a l , a nd w e do noti nc l ude th em h er e. O n ab u se o f d iscr etio n re v iew , w e A F F IR M th e d istrict co u rt’s d et erm i n at i o n s. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov er the r e m a i ni ng s t a t e l a w c l a i m s w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on. I n i t s i ni t i a l r e m a nd

1 order, the courtst at ed that“ gi ven the ea rl y s t age of the proceedi ng s, and there ap p e a r in g n o c o n s id e r a tio n s w e ig h in g a g a in s t r e m a n d , th e C o u r t f in d s it approp ri at e t o d ec l i ne t o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe st at e l aw c l a i m s i n the c om pl a i nt . ” T hi s s how s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y unde r s t ood the fa ct ors i tshou l d con si der, and d i d n otappl y tho se fa ct ors i n a w ay thatw as

“ i l l ogi c a l , i m pl a us i bl e , orw i thouts uppor ti n i nf e r e nc e s tha tm a y be dr a w n f r omT h e 2 8 ( j) le tte rs u b m itte d b y T o s h ib a ap p r is in g u s o f la te rd e v e lo p m e n ts 2 do es no tchange the anal ys i s. T he qu es t i on here i s w hether the di stri ctcourtw as w ith in it s d iscr etio n to re m an d th e c as e in N o v em b er2 0 1 0 , an d to d en y T o sh ib a’s m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n in D e c e m b e r2 0 1 0 . I t w a s . 3 the fa ct s i n the re cord. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . Hi nk

s on , 58 5 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 63 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( en banc). T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f T o sh i b a’ s m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n w as al so nota n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y not e d tha tne i the rthe com pl ai nti n thi s c as e nor i n the pu rport edl y r el at ed IB M ca se “ sugg es t s that T os hi ba a nd I B M w e r e i n s om e m a nne rw or ki ng t oge the rorw e r e e ve n a w a r e of e a c h o th e r ’s a lle g e d m is ap p r o p r ia tio n .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s th e r e f o r e ju s tif ie d in fi nd i ng thati tw as a m att erof m er e “ spec ul at i on ” thatthe ca se s w ou l d b e dee m ed re l at ed and t he se cond di stri ctj ud ge w ou l d exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov er these st at e l aw cl ai m s. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtagai n i dent i fi ed the prop erl egal s t a nda r d a nd T os hi ba c a nnotc l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng of the f a c t s m e e t s the s t a nda r d f orr e ve r s a l s t a t e d i n Hi nk s on , 585 F . 3d a t1263, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on. 2 AF F I R ME D.1

B i e r m an v . T

os hi ba C or

por at i on , N o. 11- 15262 W A L L A C E , S e n io rC ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in th e ju d g m e n t: I a gr e e w i th the m a

j or i ty ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe r e w a s no abus e of di s c r e t i on in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e c lin e to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n , b u t I d o n o tag ree w i th th e m aj o ri ty’ s m eth o d o f reach i n g th atco n cl u si o n w i th o u tfi rst a s s e s s in g w h e th e rf

e d e r a l s u b

je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n e x is te d a t a ll. A fed eral co u rtm u sth av e o ri g i n al j u ri sd i ct i o n b efo re i tcan ex erci se s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on. 28 U . S . C . § 1367( a ) . A l though I c a nnotdi s put e tha tthe m aj o ri ty i s n o w p erm i tt ed b y Si noc he m I nt ’ l C o. v . M alays i a I nt ’ l Shi ppi ng C or

p. , 549 U . S . 422 ( 2007) , t o de c i de a n i s s ue be f or e i tde t e r m i ne s i t s pow e rt o do s o, the appr oa c h ne e dl e s s l y de pa r t s f r om tr a di t i ona l f

e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on the ory : no j ur i s di c t i on, no pow e rt o a c t . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a j udgm e nton the m er i t s by di sm i ss i ng po rt i on s of tw o cause s of a ct i on as pree m pt ed. W hi l e w e w er e n o t a s k e d to r e v ie w th is m e r its d e c is io n b e c a u s e B ie r m a n d id n o t ap p e a l f r o m it, de f e c t s i n s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on “ go t o the i nhe r e ntpow e rof the c our ta nd ca nn otbe w ai ved o r f

orfe i t ed. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a s tillo , 4 9 6 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 2 ( 9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( en b an c) . It w o u ld h av e b ee n b etter p ra ctice to as se ss th e d istrict co u rt’s po w ert o render thi s m er i t s dec i si on because the confi rm at i on of ori gi nal j ur i s di c t i on i s l ogi c a l l y pr i ort o de c i di ng w he the ri tw a s pr ope rt o de c l i ne 

# FI LED MA Y31 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on, a nd be c a us e B i e rm a n’ s a c t i ons c a nnotr e l i e ve us of our duty t o a s s e s s the pr opr i e ty of ours ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. I w ou l d h ave j oi ned the S ec on d, F ou rth, and S i xth C i rc ui t s i n h ol di ng that cl ai m s pre em pt ed by § 3 01 (a ) of the C op yr i gh tA ctar e r egar ded as a ri si ng un der f e d e r a l la w , a n d th e r e f

o r e c a n s u p p o r t r e m o v a l. See B ri arpa tch L td. , L . P . v. P ho eni x P i ctures , Inc. , 3 7 3 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 5 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; R o s c isz e w s ki v . A r e te A ss ocs. , Inc. , 1 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 2 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; R i tc h i e v . Wi l l i a ms , 395 F . 3d 283, 28 6– 87 (6th C i r. 20 05 ). I w ou l d h ave hel d thatB i erm an’ s c om pl ai ntdi d p l ea d cl ai m s thatw er e s o p re em pt ed. O nl y then w ou l d I have address ed the di stri ct c our t ’ s de c i s i on nott o e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on. I c onc uri n the m a j or i ty ’ s j udgm e nt , butI do note ndor s e i t s appr oa c h.