Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 25 of 27 1 112. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim is based on these allegedly false 2 representations, Plaintiff is suing Defendants as a consumer of Defendants’ video-hosting services. 3 In other words, Plaintiff is clearly asserting that it was “hoodwinked” by Defendants’ 4 representations “into [using] a disappointing” video-hosting service (YouTube). Lexmark, 134 S. 5 Ct. at 1390. However, the United States Supreme Court confirmed in Lexmark that a consumer in 6 Plaintiff’s position “cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act.” Id. For these reasons, the 7 Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a Lanham Act claim based on the allegedly false 8 representations in the terms of agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (1) Plaintiff’s cause of 10 action for violation of the Lanham Act; and (2) Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, to the extent 11 that it is premised on a violation of the Lanham Act. The Court affords leave to amend because 12 Plaintiff may be able to allege sufficient facts to support a Lanham Act claim. See Lopez, 203 13 F.3d at 1127 (holding that “a district court should grant leave to amend . . . unless it determines 14 that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts” (internal quotation 15 marks omitted)). 16 2. State Law Causes of Action 17 Plaintiff’s remaining claims are based on state law. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts four 18 substantive state law causes of action for: (1) violation of Article I, section 2 of the California 19 Constitution; (2) violation of the Unruh Act; (3) violation of the UCL; and (4) breach of the 20 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is 21 based in part on Defendants’ alleged violations of Article I, section 2 of the California 22 Constitution and the Unruh Act. 23 A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so 24 related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the 25 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1367(a). Conversely, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has 27 28 25 Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION