throbber
Case 5:20-cv-01326 Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
`DANIEL C. DECARLO, SB# 160307
` E-Mail: Dan.DeCarlo@lewisbrisbois.com
`ESTHER Y. SHIN, SB# 324049
` E-Mail: Esther.Shin@lewisbrisbois.com
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: 213.250.1800
`Facsimile: 213.250.7900
`Attorneys for Defendant Wag Labs, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WAG HOTELS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`WAG LABS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, and DOES 1-20 inclusive,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`DEFENDANT WAG LABS, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1367, AND 1446
`
`Date Filed: December 26, 2019
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Wag Labs, Inc. (“Defendant”), by
`their counsel Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, hereby remove to this court,
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 1446, based on federal question
`jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction, the claims pending as Case No.
`19CV360764 of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. In support
`of this removal, Defendant states as follows:
`I.
`THE REMOVED CASE
`1.
`The removed case is a civil action commenced in the Superior Court of
`California, County of Santa Clara by Plaintiff Wag Hotels, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against
`1
`4834-3608-1077.1
`DEFENDANT WAG LABS, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, AND 1446
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`LEWIS
`BRISBOIS
`BISGAARD
`& SMITH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-01326 Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`Defendant entitled Wag Hotels, Inc v. Wag Labs, Inc., Case No. 19CV360764 (the
`“State Action”).
`2.
`Plaintiff filed the State Action on December 26, 2019, asserting claims
`for violation of Lanham Act, cancellation of trademark, breach of contract, breach
`of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, California statutory unfair
`competition, and declaratory relief.
`II.
`PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
`3.
`Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of service or receipt of a
`copy of the Complaint to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defendant was
`served with a copy of the Complaint on January 24, 2020. This Notice of Removal
`is therefore timely filed.
`4.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue for the purposes of removal
`only is proper in the Northern District of California because this district embraces
`the place in which the removed action has been pending. This Court embraces the
`County of Santa Clara pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).
`5.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice
`of Removal will be filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
`Clara promptly after filing of same in this Court.
`6.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Notice
`of Removal will be given to all adverse parties promptly after filing of same in this
`Court.
`If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action,
`7.
`Defendant requests the opportunity to conduct discovery, brief any disputed issues
`and to present oral argument in favor of its position that this case is properly
`removable.
`Noting in this Notice of Removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or
`8.
`relinquishment of Defendant’s rights to assert any defense or affirmative claims
`against Plaintiff.
`2
`4834-3608-1077.1
`DEFENDANT WAG LABS, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, AND 1446
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`LEWIS
`BRISBOIS
`BISGAARD
`& SMITH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-01326 Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`III. THE COURT HAS FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
`A. Plaintiff Asserts a Claim Arising Under the Laws of the United States
`9.
`The Court has original jurisdiction over this case. Federal question
`jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 because Plaintiff has asserted a
`claim “arising under the…laws…of the United States.”
`10.
`The case may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. section 1441(c) because it is a civil action over which the District Court has
`original jurisdiction founded on claims arising under the laws of the United States.
`11.
`There is federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff asserts a claim
`for relief under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1119, 1064.
`12. Because at least one of the claims in the Complaint involves the
`resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question under the Lanham Act, the case
`is removable to this Court.
`B. The Court Has Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Any Non Federal
`Claims
`Supplemental jurisdiction exists as to all other claims pled in the
`13.
`Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`14.
`The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction “over all other
`claims that are so related to claims within such original jurisdiction that they form
`part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This standard is
`satisfied here. All of Plaintiff’s state law claims are based on the same factual
`allegations supporting its federal Lanham Act claim. Those claims are so related to
`the Lanham Act claims (as to which there is federal question jurisdiction) that they
`form part of the same case or controversy about the Defendant’s purported
`infringement of Plaintiff’s alleged trademark.
`15.
`There is a significant interest in having these and other federal issues
`adjudicated in a federal forum, and removal of this action will not disrupt any
`balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities over related disputes.
`3
`4834-3608-1077.1
`DEFENDANT WAG LABS, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, AND 1446
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`LEWIS
`BRISBOIS
`BISGAARD
`& SMITH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-01326 Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`16. Accordingly, to the extent necessary, this Court has supplemental
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`17.
`For the reasons set forth above, Defendant removes the above-
`referenced action pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
`(Case No. 19CV360764) to the United States District Court for the Northern District
`of California.
`
`DATED: February 21, 2020
`
`DANIEL C. DECARLO
`ESTHER Y. SHIN
`LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
`
`By:
`
`/S/ DANIEL C. DECARLO
`Daniel C. DeCarlo
`Attorneys for Defendant Wag Labs, Inc.
`
`4
`4834-3608-1077.1
`DEFENDANT WAG LABS, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, AND 1446
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`LEWIS
`BRISBOIS
`BISGAARD
`& SMITH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket