Overview

CategoriesLaw

HOLDINGS: [1]-The federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility claim under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(4) because by filing these actions in federal court, plaintiffs evaded these limits, yet were still able to claim state law damages. Importantly, combining an Americans with Disabilities Act claim with an Unruh claim did not increase the range of remedies available to a plaintiff; [2]-The federal court properly concluded that exceptional and compelling reasons supported the court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim by litigation lawyer California and any other construction-related accessibility claim.

Outcome

Claims dismissed.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff patent holder moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants, competitor and employee, from infringing on its patent. The competitor and employee moved to dissolve a temporary restraining order.

Overview

The patent holder brought an action against the competitor and the employee for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1338(a)(b), misappropriation of trade secrets, federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), state unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and bad faith breach of contract. The patent holder moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the competitor and the employee from infringing on its patent. The competitor and the employee moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order. The court denied the motion for the preliminary injunction and granted the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order because the patent holder failed to show either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions were raised and the balances of hardships tipped sharply in its favor.

Outcome

The court denied the patent holder’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It granted the competitor’s and the employee’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order.

About the author