Blufocus Inc v. Michael Clark et al
||Rick Shapiro, Josh Humphrey, Does, Cross Check Media, Michael Clark and Brent Sharon
||June 27, 2013
||California Central District Court
||Jay C. Gandhi
|Nature of Suit:
||Personal Property: Other
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 19, 2013
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson. Before this Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiff Blufocus, Inc. ("Plaintiff") against defendants Michael Clark, Brent Sharon, Josh Humphrey, Rick Shapiro, Cross Check Media ("CCM"), and Does 1-10 (collectively, "Defendants"). The Complaint alleges claims for: violations of the Computer Fraudand Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq.; violations of the California Uniform Trade SecretsAct, Cal . Civ. Code §§ 3426 et seq.; fraud; breach of duty of loyalty; making untrue or misleadingrepresentations to the public; unfair competition; and accessing Plaintiff's computers withoutauthorization and in excess of the authority grante d to them in violation of California Penal Code section502e(1). Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.Because Plaintiff does not allege any other jurisdictional bases, it appears that the Cour tpossesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought pursuant to California state law. 28U.S.C. § 1367(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) states that the district courts shall have supplementaljurisdiction over all other claims that are s o related to claims in the action within such originaljurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United StatesConstitution." "Nonfederal claims are part of the same 'case' as federal claims when they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding." Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Assn, 387 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdictio n over the state law claims raised in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file its response to this order to show cause no later than September 30, 2013. The failure to file an adequate response by this date may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the state law claims without prejudice. (pso)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System