Case 2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA Document 183 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:7026
`Case 2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA Document 183 Filed 08/10/18 Page1of2 Page ID #:7026
`
`JS-6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA
`
`Date August 10, 2018
`
`Title
`
`Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Medical, Inc.
`
`Present: The Honorable R.GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Sharon L. Williams
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Reported
`
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`
`N/A
`
`Tape No.
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendant:
`
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) Order Dismissing Case Sua Sponte for Lack of
`Jurisdiction
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Fulfillium, Inc.
`(“Fulfilltum’”) alleged three counts of patent infringementin violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 against
`ReShape Medical LLC and ReShapeLifesciences, Inc. Fulfillium also alleged trade secret
`misappropriation in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) against ReShape
`Medical LLC and SV Health Investors, LLC (“SV Health”). On July 5, 2018, the Court granted
`ReShape Medical LLC’s motion to dismiss the patent infrimgement claims, finding that Fulfillium
`lacked standing to bring its patent infringement claims at the timeit filed suit. (See ECF No. 148.) The
`Court’s Orderleft Fulfillium’s CUTSA claim against ReShape Medical LLC and SV Healthasthe sole
`remaining claim.
`
`As explained below, the Court finds that it must dismiss the CUTSA claim sua sponte for lack
`of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the two motions pending in the case — SV Health’s
`Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 152) and Fulfillium’s Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 181) — are
`DENIEDas moot.
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`No party hasraised, and the Court has not yet addressed, whether it was appropriate to continue
`to exercise jurisdiction over Fulfillium’s CUTSA claim after the dismissal of its federal patent
`infringement claims for lack of standing. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a
`district court is “obligated to determine swa sponte whetherit has subject matter jurisdiction.” Moorev.
`Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011). “If the Court determinesat any time
`that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`RESHAPE1023
`
`RESHAPE 1023
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA Document 183 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:7027
`Case 2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA Document 183 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2of2 Page ID #:7027
`
`JS-6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA
`
`Date August 10, 2018
`
`Title
`
`Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Medical, Inc.
`
`Here, the Court originally had federal question jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims
`and supplementaljurisdiction over the CUTSA claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1338, 1336. Ifa district
`court dismissesall federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it has no discretion to adjudicate
`the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Scott v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., 306
`F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806
`(9th Cir. 2001)). Standing is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. Jd. Thus, when the Court dismissed
`the patent infringement claims for lack of standing, it immediately lost the authority to retain jurisdiction
`over the CUTSA claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Scott, 306 F.3d at 664. The Court therefore must dismiss
`Fulfillium’s CUTSA claim without prejudice. Fulfillium mayrefile its CUTSA claim in state court. See
`Centaur Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund Ltd. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1009,
`1018-19 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (discussing the savings provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)).
`
`Because the Court must dismiss Fulfilluum’s CUTSAclaim onjurisdictional grounds, it cannot
`decide the motions pending in this case. SV Health’s Motion to Dismiss the CUTSA claim as barred by
`the statute of limitations is therefore DENIED as moot. Fulfillium’s recently filed Motion to
`Consolidate is likewise DENIED as moot.
`
`Ill,
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice for lack
`of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also sua sponte DENIESas moot SV Health’s Motion to
`Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Fulfillium’s Motion to Consolidate.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`RESHAPE1023
`
`RESHAPE 1023
`
`