In essence, Privé is alleging that Politz, as part of some alleged modus operandi of businesses, is the source behind the anonymous letter either having written it himself or working in conjunction with unknown individuals (i.e. the former Privé hosts now being sued by their own boss) and thus he is responsible for the libelous content regarding the Plaintiffs as well as the tarnishment to Privés trademark.

While the primary causes of action are the state common law claims for Defamation Per Se, Commercial Defamation Per Se, Intentional Interference with Existing Business Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business, and Extortion, the Complaints first cause of action is for trademark infringement/dilution by tarnishment. [Comment--I guess Privé believes its name is already famous after only eight months of use]. Of course, this particular cause of action is important because it is the sole basis for the federal courts original jurisdiction. The courts jurisdiction for the state law claims is based solely on the courts supplemental jurisdiction.

So in addition to this being a fascinating story about the Las Vegas night club scene, it also demonstrates using a questionable trademark cause of action as a jurisdictional hook in order to get state law claims heard in a federal court.

The basis for a federal court having supplemental jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), which states In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy . . . Claims are so related as to form the same case or controversy when such claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative fact. Thus, a federal court only has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if they form part of the same case or controversy as the claim upon which original jurisdiction is based.

So Privé is relying on its trademark infringement claim to carry the day for its five state causes of action. Of course, it is a bit of stretch to say that the five state causes of action form part of the same case or controversy as the claim for trademark infringement given that the facts necessary to resolve those state claims are not likely to relate to the facts necessary to resolve a claim for trademark infringement (basically, ownership of a mark and likelihood of confusion)

In addition, courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims if the state claims substantially predominate over the claim on which the district court has original jurisdiction in terms of proof, the scope of the issues raised, or the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought.

Similar posts: las vegas casino