ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, INC. v. WARRICK, 10-cv-00660-JLK-KMT. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120404918
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge. Given my denial earlier today of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 87), Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss State Law Invasion of Privacy Claim for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 73) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion rests entirely on the premise that Plaintiffs' Complaint supports a claim under the federal Lanham Act, which, if added, would provide the court with subject matter juri
Summary: ORDER JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge. Given my denial earlier today of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 87), Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss State Law Invasion of Privacy Claim for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 73) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion rests entirely on the premise that Plaintiffs' Complaint supports a claim under the federal Lanham Act, which, if added, would provide the court with subject matter juris..
More
ORDER
JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge.
Given my denial earlier today of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 87), Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss State Law Invasion of Privacy Claim for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 73) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion rests entirely on the premise that Plaintiffs' Complaint supports a claim under the federal Lanham Act, which, if added, would provide the court with subject matter jurisdiction independently of the federal copyright infringement claim on which summary judgment recently entered. That premise falls with my denial of Plaintiffs' request to add a Lanham Act claim at this late stage of the proceedings. See Order (Doc. 102), dated April 3, 2012.
Given there are no claims left in this action supporting the court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, I consider whether to exercise jurisdiction over the state law invasion of privacy claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and decline to do so. That disposes of the sole remaining claim in this action. Final judgment on Plaintiffs' copyright and unfair competition claims has already entered, and the state law invasion of privacy claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. This case may therefore be closed.
Source: Leagle
