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