Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209580424/Notice-of-Removal-Legend
Timestamp: 2015-07-05 06:37:40
Document Index: 610210637

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 43', '§ 1331', '§ 1332', '§ 1446', '§ 1441', '§ 1331', '§ 1114', '§ 1331', '§ 1125', '§ 1367', '§ 1332']

P. 1Notice of Removal LegendNotice of Removal LegendRatings: (0)|Views: 88|Likes: 0Published by pauloverhauserNoticeNoticeMore info:Published by: pauloverhauser on Feb 27, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/209580424/Notice-of-Removal-Legend02/27/2014pdftextoriginal 5898239.2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JAMES DEAN, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:14:-cv-00183 v. ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TWITTER, INC.; and JOHN DOE ) DEFENDANTS 1-5 COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL This is the Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“
Twitter ”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441 and 1446, to remove the lawsuit captioned as
James Dean, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc. and John Doe Defendants 1-5 Company
, Case No. 29D01-1213-CC-12060, from the Superior Court of the County of Hamilton, Indiana, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. As grounds for removing this action, Twitter states: BACKGROUND 1.
On or about December 31, 2013, Plaintiff James Dean, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Twitter, as well as the fictitious persons, John Doe Defendants 1-5 Company, in the Superior Court of the County of Hamilton, Indiana. This action was assigned Case No. 29D01-1213-CC-12060. A true and accurate copy of the Complaint and summons served upon Twitter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Copies of all other pleadings and orders in the state court action are also included in Exhibit A. 2.
’s registered agent
was served with a summons and a copy of the Complaint by certified mail on January 8, 2014. Case 1:14-cv-00183-WTL-DML Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property including but not limited to visual and aural depictions, artifacts, memorabilia, and life-story rights, and / or trade dress of the late internationally recognized movie start, James Dean. See Complaint at ¶ 5. 4.
Plaintiff further alleges that Twitter has allowed the registration and operation of a Twitter account, using the handle @JamesDean, located at https://twitter.com/JamesDean, which is in violation of Plaintiff’s rights. See id.
at ¶¶ 10
– 15. 5.
Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against Twitter: Count I – Trademark Infringement Under Section 32(1) or 3(A) of the Lanham Act; Count II – False Endorsement Under Lanham Act § 43(A); Count III – Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity; Count IV – Common Law Right of Publicity; Count V – Common Law Unfair Competition; Count VI – Unjust Enrichment; Count VII – Conversion; Count VIII – Deception; and Count IX – Indiana Crime Victims’ Act.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages, includi
ng treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees as set out in the Indiana Right of Publicity Statute, Lanham Act, Indiana Statute, and other applicable statutes. See Complaint at 12 (Prayer for Relief). In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Id.
Based upon the allegations of the Complaint and for the reasons discussed below, Twitter timely removes this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). Case 1:14-cv-00183-WTL-DML Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
- 3 - 8.
Defendants “John Doe Defendants 1
-5 Company
” are not required to join in or consent to the removal of this action because they have been sued under fictitious names and thus have not be properly joined and served in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION 9.
ion may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) if it is one “of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.”
This Court has original jurisdiction over Count I (Trademark Infringement) of Plaintiff ’
s Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because it is a cause of action arising under the laws of the United States, namely the Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a). See Complaint at ¶ 17. 11.
This Court has original jurisdiction over Count II (False Endorsement) of Plaintiff’s Co
mplaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because it is a cause of action arising under the laws of the United States, namely the Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). See Complaint at ¶ 25. 12.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX of the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
, because all of Plaintiff’
s claims are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP A. The Parties Are Diverse 13.
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires the plaintiff ’
s citizenship be diverse from the citizenship of the defendants. Case 1:14-cv-00183-WTL-DML Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3