alleges underlying. wrongful acts is valid. Nichols Motorcycle
Supply, Inc. v. Dunlop Tire Co., 1994 WL 698486, at *1 (N.D.Ill.
1994). Accordingly, counts V and VI of Plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint, alleging civil conspiracy to commit patent
infringement and civil conspiracy to commit copyright
infringement, must also be dismissed.
By granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs
patent infringement claim and by dismissing Plaintiffs copyright
infringement claim, this court has dismissed the only counts of
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint which support federal
jurisdiction. "`[T]he general rule is that, when all federal
claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should
relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than
resolving them on the merits.'" Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher &
Newman. Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 727 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 167, 142 L.Ed.2d 136 (1998) (quoting Wright
v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Cases involving difficult and unresolved issues of state law may
well be adjudicated more accurately and more expeditiously in a
state court. Centres, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wis.,
148 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998). In addition, respect for the state's
interest in applying its own law, along with the state court's
greater expertise in applying state law, are paramount concerns.
Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 728. Based upon these considerations, this
court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3); Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 727-28.
Accordingly, there is no need for this court to rule on the
sufficiency of counts III, IV, VII, and VIII of Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint or to allow Plaintiff to file its proposed
Third Amended Complaint in this court. Counts III, IV, VII and
VIII are dismissed without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to
refile the cause in state court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants on count
I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint.
(2) Counts II, V and VI are dismissed with prejudice.
(3) Counts III, IV, VII and VIII are dismissed without
prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to refile the cause in state court.
(4) For the reasons stated, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (#
45, # 47, # 80) are GRANTED. This case is terminated. The parties
shall be responsible for their own court costs.
On December 14, 1998, this court entered an Order (# 111) which
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Count I of
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. In the Order, this court
also dismissed Counts II, V and VI with prejudice and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining
state law claims. Accordingly, the case was terminated.
On December 29, 1998, Plaintiff, Rotec Industries, Inc., filed
a Motion for Reconsideration of the. Order granting Summary
Judgment or, in the alternative, for leave to conduct limited
discovery (# 113). Plaintiff argues that this court misconstrued
the applicable law and misinterpreted critical facts of record.
Defendants, Mitsubishi Corporation, Tucker Associates, Inc. and
Garry Tucker, filed a Response (# 114) to Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration on January 8, 1999. Defendants contend that this
court properly granted summary judgment. Defendants argue that
this court correctly found, based upon the facts before it and
the applicable law, that no act of patent infringement occurred
within the United States.
Following a careful review of Plaintiffs Motion and Defendants'
Response, this court concludes that Plaintiff was allowed
adequate time and opportunity to conduct discovery prior to
filing its Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Further,
this court stands by its conclusion that the documents submitted
by Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether Defendants "offered to sell" a patented
invention within the United States. As a consequence, Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration
of the Order granting Summary Judgment or, in the alternative,
for leave to conduct limited discovery (# 113) is DENIED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.