Spicy Beer Mix v. New Castle - Complaint

8/13/2019 Spicy Beer Mix v. New Castle - Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spicy-beer-mix-v-new-castle-complaint 1/24

1 Gregg A. Rapoport (SBN 136941)Law Offices orGregg A. Rapoport, APLC

2 135 West Green Street, Suite 100Pasadena, California 91105

3 Tel. 626-585-0155; Fax 626-585-0355gar@garlaw us

4Constance R. Lindman pro hac vice application pending)

SmithAmundsen LLC

13

201 North Illinois StreetSouth Tower, 16th FloorIndianapolis, Indiana 46204Tel. 317-927-3602; Fax [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffsSPICY BEER M ~ INC., GREGORYMURKIJANIAN, ~ R . andPREMIER FOODS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

14 SPICY BEER MIX, INC. a Californiacomoration, GREGORY

15MURKIJANIAN, SR., an individual, and

ca VJ 4-7 20 oolu J

16

17

PREMIER FOODS, LLC, COMPLAINT FOR:

vs.

Plaintiffs, 1) DECLARATORY JUDGMENTFOR PATENT INVALIDITY

18 NEW CASTLE BEVERAGE, INC., a

19 California co Poration, and RICKY D.MONUGIAN, an individual,

2) DECLARATORY JUDGMENTFOR INEQUITABLECONDUCT;

20

21

,/ 22

Defendants.3) VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR

COMPETITION LAW; AND

4) DECLARATORY JUDGMENTRE TRADE SECRETSMISAPPROPRIATION

23 1 ~ ~

Plaintiffs Spicy Beer Mix, Inc. ("SBMI"), Gregory Murkijanian, Sr.

("Murkijanian"), and Premier Foods, LLC ("Premier") aver the following for their

claims against Defendants Ricky D. Monugian ("Monugian") and New Castle

Beverage, Inc. ("NCBI"):

I-

COMPLAINT



1

2

3

4

5

6

.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over certain of these claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367; in that, certain claims arise under

the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and supplemental

jurisdiction exists because other claims are so related to claims as to which the

District Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or

7 controversy under Article III ofthe United States Constitution, as alleged below.

8 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); in that

9 Defendant Monugian resides in this district and Defendant NCBI has its principal

10 place of business within this district.

11

THE P RTIES12 3 Plaintiff SBMI is a California corporation with its principal place of

13 business in the City of Whittier, California.

14 4. Plaintiff Murkijanian is an individual with his residence in the City of

15 Whittier, California.

16 5. Plaintiff Premier is a California limited liability company with its

17 principal place of business in the City of Santa Fe Springs, California.

18 6. On information and belief, Defendant Monugian is an individual

19 residing in the State of California.

20 7. On information and belief, Defendant NCBI is a California

21 corporation with its principal place of business at 1115 Centre Drive, City of

22 Industry, California 91789.

23 8. Monugian is the named inventor ofU.S. Patent Nos. D652,681 (the

24 '681 Patent ) and D682,035 (the '035 Patent ). True and correct copies of these

25 patents are attached hereto.

26 9 On information and belief, Monugian asserts that he is the licensor of

27 the '681 Patent and that NCBI is the exclusive licensee of the '681 Patent.

28

-2-COMPLAINT



1

2

3

4

.

FIRST CL IM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment For Patent Invalidity)

10. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.5

11. On information and belief, Monugian filed the original application for

6the '681 Patent on October 6, 2010, and filed the original application for the'035

7Patent on November 10,2011.

8 12. On information and belief, products bearing the trademarks

9 ANTRO'S MIX, MICHELADAS ANTRO'S MIX and MICHELADAS

10 ANTRO'S MIX HOT (collectively, the ANTRO'S MIX Products ) were in

11 public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing12 date of the claimed inventions, and at least as early as July 1 2009.

13 13. The ANTRO' S MIX Products are substantially the same as the

14 inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the'035 Patent to the ordinary observer.

15 14. On information and belief, the product shown in the video HOW to

16 make a 'Michelada' Mexican Beer Drink at

17 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrPSHxD89CU (the Michelada Video

18 Product ) was in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the

19 effective filing date of the claimed inventions, and at least as early as February 25,

20 2007.

21 15. The Michelada Video Product is substantially the same as the

22 inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the'035 Patent to the ordinary observer.

23 16. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the ANTRO'S

24 MIX Products, the Michelada Video Product, or other similar products were in

25 public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing

26 date ofthe claimed inventions during the prosecution ofthe '681 Patent and the

27 '035 Patent.

28

3

COMPLAINT



117. On information and belief, one or more cups similar to the cups

2shown in the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent were in public use, on sale, or

3otherwise available to the public in this country by Dart Container (the Prior Art

4Cups ) at least as early as January 12, 2006. The Prior Art Cups are substantially

5 the same as the cup portion o the invention claimed in the '681 Patent and the

6

7

'03 5 Patent to the ordinary observer.

18. On information and belief, one or more lids similar to the lid shown in

8 the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent (the Prior Art Lids ) were in public use, on

9 sale, or otherwise available to the public in this country at least as early as March

10 30, 2005. The Prior Art Lids are substantially the same as the lid portion o the

11

12inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent to the ordinary observer.

19. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the Prior Art

13 Cups and the Prior Art Lids or other similar products were in public use, on sale, or

14 otherwise available to the public in this country during the prosecution o the '681

15 Patent and the '035 Patent.

16 20. On information and belief, the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent are

17 each invalid under the United States patent laws for one or more o the following

18 reasons:

19 (a) The alleged inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the '035

20 Patent were known or used by others in this country or patented or described in a

21 printed publication in this or a foreign country before the alleged invention thereof

22 by the applicant for the patents, in violation o 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

23 (b) The alleged inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and '035

24 Patent were patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign

25 country or was in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to

26 the date the original applications for patents were filed in the United States, in

27 violation o 35 U.S.C. § 102(b .

28

4

COMPLAINT



1(c) The applicant for the 681 Patent and the 035 Patent did not

2himself invent the inventions claimed in the patents, as required by 35 U.S.C.

3§ 102(t).

4(d) The alleged inventions claimed in the 681 Patent and 035

5Patent were made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or

6concealed it in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).

7(e) The differences between the alleged inventions claimed in the

8681 Patent and 035 Patent and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a

9whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a

10person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains in

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 103.12

(f) The applicant failed to disclose material prior art in violation of

337 CFR § 1.56.

14(g) The inventions claimed in the 681 Patent and 035 Patent are

5functional and not entitled to patent protection under 35 U S.C. § 171.

1621. An actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28

17U.S.C. § 2201, exists between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendants on the

8 other hand concerning the validity ofthe 681 Patent and the 035 Patent; in that

19Defendants have previously alleged patent infringement claims in this Court

20against Plaintiffs (in Case No 13-CV-02055 SJO(JEMx)), dismissing those claims

2without prejudice only when confronted with the above-alleged grounds for

22 invalidity, and nevertheless have continued to assert to beverage distributors and

23 retailers in the market for spicy beverage cup products, such as those produced by

24 SBMI, that Plaintiffs have exclusive rights to produce, advertise, and sell spicy

25 beverage cups based upon these patents, and have thereby continued to injure

26 Plaintiffs by hindering SBMI s ability to generate sales of its product, by damaging

27 Plaintiffs reputations, and by reducing Premier s production revenues.

28

5

COMPLAINT



122. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the 681 Patent

2and the 035 Patent are each invalid under the United States patent laws.

3SECOND CLAIM FOR R LI F

4(Declaratory Judgment For Ineguitable Conduct)

523. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding

6paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.

7 24. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the ANTRO S

8 MIX Products, the Michelada Video Product, or other similar products were in

9 public use and on sale in this country during the prosecution of the 681 Patent and

10 the 035 Patent.

25. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the Prior Art

12 Cups and the Prior Art Lids or other similar products were in public use and on

3 sale in this country during the prosecution of the 681 Patent and the 035 Patent.

14 26. On information and belief, the Prior Art constitutes non-cumulative

5 material prior art relevant to the claims of the 681 Patent and the 035 Patent

16 because they embody the inventions shown in the 681 Patent and the 035 Patent.

7 Alternatively, the Prior Art makes the combination of elements claimed in the 681

8 Patent and the 035 Patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

9 27. On information and belief, Monugian was associated with the filing

20 and prosecution ofthe 681 Patent application and the 035 Patent application as a

2 result ofhis position as the named inventor of the invention claimed in the 681

22 Patent and the 035 Patent.

23 28. On information and belief, Monugian did not disclose the Prior Art to

24 the United States Patent Office during the prosecution of the 681 Patent and the

25 035 Patent, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.

26 29. On information and belief, the 681 Patent and the 035 Patent are

27 each unenforceable because Monugian engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to

28 comply with his duty to disclose to the United States Patent Office all non-

6

COMPLAINT



1cumulative material prior art of which he was aware during the prosecution of the

2681 Patent and the 035 Patent.

330. On information and belief, had Monugian disclosed the Prior Art, the

4United States Patent Office would have rejected the claimed inventions as obvious

5over the Prior Art alone or in combination.

631. n actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 8

7 U.S.C. § 2201, exists between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendants on the

8 other hand concerning the enforceability ofthe 681 Patent and the 035 Patent; in

9 that Defendants have previously alleged patent infringement claims in this Court

10 against Plaintiffs (in Case No 13-CV-02055 SJO(JEMx)), dismissing those claims

without prejudice only when confronted with the above-alleged grounds for12 invalidity, and nevertheless have continued to assert to beverage distributors and

13 retailers in the market for spicy beverage cup products, such as those produced by

14 SBMI, that Plaintiffs have exclusive rights to produce, advertise, and sell spicy

5 beverage cups based upon these patents, and have thereby continued to injure

16 Plaintiffs by hindering SBMI s ability to generate sales of its product and by

17 reducing Premier s production revenues.

18 32. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the 681 Patent

19 and the 035 Patent are each unenforceable under the United States patent laws.

20

2

THIRD CLAIM OR RELIEF

Violation of the Unfair Competition Law)

22 33. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding

23 paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.

24 34. Subject matter jurisdiction over this claim exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25 § 1367; in that, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction this claim because it is so

26 related to claims in this action within this Court s original jurisdiction that they

27 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States

28

7

COMPLAINT



1Constitution, based upon a common nucleus o operative facts such that a plaintiff

2would ordinarily be expected to try them all in a single judicial proceeding.

335. On information and belief, Defendants are engaged in a campaign to

4drive out competition in the spicy beverage cup market by threatening to sue

5 Plaintiffs distributors, retailers and suppliers, as well as those o other makers o

6 similar products, for patent infringement, citing exclusive rights under the invalid

7 681 Patent and/or 035 Patent, and thereby unjustifiably are interfering with

8 competitors actual and prospective economic relationships with their distributors,

9 customers, and suppliers.

10 36. Based on the conduct alleged above, Defendants have engaged in

unfair business practices in violationo

Sections 17200 et seq.o

the California12 Business Professions Code.

3 37. Defendants conduct, as alleged above, is unfair, illegal, immoral,

14 unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers and to

5 competitors in the spicy beverage cup market.

16 38. Defendants conduct should be enjoined to prevent further losses and

17 damages at the hands o such conduct.

18 39. Defendants should be made to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys

19 fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the action.

20

2

FOURTH CL IM FOR RELIEF

Declaratory Judgment Re Trade Secrets Misappropriation)

22 40. Plaintiff incorporates the averments set forth in the preceding

23 paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.

24 41. Subject matter jurisdiction over this claim exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25 § 1367; in that, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction this claim because it is so

26 related to claims in this action within this Court s original jurisdiction that they

27 form part o the same case or controversy under Article III o the United States

28

COMPLAlNT



1Constitution, based upon a common nucleus of operative facts such that a plaintiff

2would ordinarily be expected to try them all in a single judicial proceeding.

342. On information and belief, Defendant NCBI manufactures and sells

4within the United States a product known as a spicy beverage cup, which is a

5disposable cup containing a dry chile-powder mixed substance, some of which is

6affixed to the rim area of the cups. A consumer will pour beer into the cup,

7creating a Mexican-style beverage commonly known as a Michelada drink.

8 43. On information and belief, Defendants NCBI and Monugian claim

9 exclusive rights to make, use, sell, and offer to sell NCBI s spicy beverage cup as a

10 matter of trade secrets laws.

44. Plaintiff SBMI manufactures and sells a spicy beverage cup product12 within the United States.

3 45. On information and belief, Defendants NCBI and Monugian have

14 asserted a claim against SBMI and others pursuant to the California Uniform Trade

5 Secrets Act, California Civil Code sections 3426 et seq., including but not limited

16 to within Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. GC051058 (the State

17 Court Trade Secrets Action ), alleging that NCBI s spicy beverage cup product is

18 made using the following alleged trade secrets, which are owned by Monugian and

19 exclusively licensed to NCBI: ( 1) a process of applying a secret solution to the

20 inner and outer surfaces adjacent the lip of a beverage cup to permit a first mixture

2 of spices to adhere to those surfaces; 2) an apparatus ... that distributes the

22 secret solution to the inner and outer surfaces adjacent the lip of a beverage cup;

23 and (3) a sequence in which pre-determined quantities of the ingredients of a

24 second mixture are blended. (These are referred to herein as the Alleged Trade

25 Secrets. )

26 46. On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,

27 NCBI and Monugian assert, inter alia that the alleged trade secret apparatus is

28

-9-

COMPIAINT



1valuable and not commonly known, by virtue of its patentability, as alleged

2therein.

347 On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,

4NCBI and Monugian assert that they have protected the secrecy of the Alleged

5Trade Secrets by a variety of reasonable means.

648. On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,

7NCBI and Monugian assert that Plaintiffs have misappropriated and continue to

8 misappropriate the Alleged Trade Secrets in connection with the manufacture and

9 sale ofSBMI's spicy beverage product, and seek damages and injunctive relief.

10 49. In the State Court Trade Secrets Action, SBMI, Murkijanian, and

11

Premier, have denied the material allegations made by NCBI and Monugian.12 50. n actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28

13 U.S.C. § 2201, exists between Defendants NCBI and Monugian on the one hand

14 and Plaintiffs on the other hand concerning the merits ofDefendants' claim of

15 trade secrets misappropriation and Plaintiffs' defenses thereto, including but not

16 limited to within the State Court Trade Secrets Action.

17 51. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that they are not liable

18 for trade secret misappropriation.

19 PR YERFORRELIEF

20 Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendants

21 as follows:

22

23

24

1

2

3

Declaring that the claim of the '681 Patent is invalid;

Declaring that the claim of the '035 Patent is invalid;

Declaring that the claim of he '681 Patent is unenforceable as a result

25 of inequitable conduct;

26 4. Declaring that the claim of the '035 Patent is unenforceable as a result

27 of inequitable conduct;

28

10

COMPLAlNT



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0

5. Finding this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

awarding Plaintiffs their expenses, costs and attorneys' fees;

6. For an injunction barring Defendants from asserting exclusive rights

to manufacture and sell spicy beverage cups based Defendants' claims under upon

the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent.

7.

8.

9.

Declaring that Plaintiff is not liable for trade secret misappropriation.

For an award o costs and attorney's fees as allowed by law.

Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems

Gregg A. Rapoport

Attorney For PlaintiffsSPICY BEER MIJS INC., GREGORYMURKIJANIAN, ~ R . andPREMIER FOODS, LLC

11

COMPLAINT



I IIII h1111 111 l ISOOD652681 S

c12) United States Design PatentMonugian

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US D652,681 S

Jan.24 2012

(54) BEVERAGE BOLDER

(76) Inventor: Ricky D Monuglan, Ontario, CA (US)

(**) Term: 14 Yean

(21) Appl. No.: 29/372,035

(22) Filed: Oct. 6, 2010

(51) LOC 9) Cl .................................................. 07-01

(52) U.S. Cl ........................................................ D7/510

(58) Field ofClassifieadon Search ................... D7/510,

D7/511, 500 532, 900; 215/121, 382, 388,

215/387; 220/674 715 713 718, 592.16,

220/592.17, 709, 708; D9/551, 529

See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

2,782,614 A • 2/1957 Curri e ............. ............. 22017186,202,877 Bl • 3/2001 La Torre et al. ............ 220/254.1D466,371 S • 12/2002 Parker ............................ 07/510

D472,101 s .. 3 2003 Janky 071532

0535,151 s l/2007 Sewnetat .................... 07/5100586,182 s • 2/2009 Trombly ................... . . 07/510

0622,546 s • 8/2010 Bodum .......................... 07/510

0639,166 s • 6/2011 Carreno ............... . .

09/504• c ited by examiner

Primary xaminer Cynthia Underwood

(57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a beverage holder, as shown and

described.

DESCRIPTION

FIG. is a Perspective view of a beverage holder showing my

new design;

FIG. 2 is a front view of my new design illuslrated in FIG.l;

the rear view of my new design is the mirrorimageof he front

view;

FIG. 3 is a top view thereof; and,

FIG. 4 is a bottom view thereof.

The broken lines represent portions of the environment and

form no part of he claim.

1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets



US D652 681 S

U.S. PatentJan.24 2012

Sbeet 1 of

FIG 1



U.S. atent Jan.24 2012 heet 2 of 4 US D652 681 S

FIG 2



..• •

U.S. Patent Jan.24,2012 Sheet 3 o 4 US D652 681 S

FIG 3

(-- \ (--,\ \

' . ' /

/ . : ~\ \

(,l II\

\_,<::·



U.S. atent Jan.24,2012 Sheet 4 of 4 U D652,681 S

FIG 4



I(12) United States Design Patent

Monugian

to) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US D682 035 SMay 14, 2013

(54) BEVERAGE HOLDER

(76) Inventor: Ricky D. Monugian Ontario, CA (US)

(**) Term: 14 Years

(21) Appl. No.: 29/395.023

(22) Filed: Nov. 10. 2011

(51) LOC (9) Cl •.................................................. 07-01

(52) U.S. Cl.

USPC ........................................................... D7/523

(58) Field of Classification Search ................... 07/528,07/526, 525, 530, 531, 532, 300, 300.2, 533,

07/510 523 507 511 509; 220/592.17,220/592.16, 495.03; 426/88

See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

D488,672 S • 4/2004 Oas ................................ 07/507

D489,501 S • 5/2004 Oretzka ........................... 034/ 10554 ,822 S • 1112007 Oretzka ........................... 034/10561,535 S • 212 8 Jin .................................07/5310581,738 S • 12/2008 Bodurn .......................... 07/5230582,724 S 12/2008 Oretzka ......................... 0715230640,094 S • 6/20II Carlson et al ................. 07/510

0648,985 S 1112 11 Chiuetal. ................ 0715100652,681 S • 112 12 Monugian ...................... 0715100655,982 S • 3/2012 Liu ................................ 115 9

cited by examiner

Primary Examiner George D Kirschbaum

Assistant Examiner Janice Hallmark

(57) CLAIM

The ornamental design for a beverage holder, as shown and

described.

DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a beverage holder showing my

new design;

FIG. 2 is a front view of my new design illustrated in FIG. 1;

the rear view of my new design is the mirro r image of he front

view;FIG. 3 is a top view thereof; and,

FIG. 4 is a bottom view thereof.

The broken line showing in FIG. 4 of the bottom of thebeverage holder is included for the purpose of illustrating

portions of the Beverage Holder and forms no part of the

claimed design.

1 Claim. 4 Drawing Sheets



.\JS D682 035 S

Sheet 1 of

U S atent

FJG 1



••

U.S. atent May 14 2013 Sheet 2 o 4 US D682 035 S

FIG 2



»

U.S. atent ay 14 2013 Sheet 3 of 4 US D682 035 S

FJG 3



• ' I l. _

U.S. Patent May 14,2013 Sheet 4 o 4 U D682 035 S

FJG 4



UNITED TES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT ~ L I F O R N ICIVIL COVER SHEET

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D ) DEFENDANTS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D )

SPICY BEER MIX, INC. a California corporation, GREGORY MURKUANIAN, SR., an

individual, and PREMIER FOODS, LLC

NEW CASTLE BEVERAGE, INC.. a California corporat ion, and RICKY D. MONUGIAN, an

individual

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles

EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

c) Attorneys Firm Name, Address nd Telephone Number) If you are

representing yourself, provide the same information.

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles

IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

Attorneys Firm Name, Address nd Telephone Number) If you are

representing yourself, provide the same information.

Gregg A. Rapoport, Law Offices of Gregg A. Rapoport, APLC, 135 W. Green St., Ste.

100, Pasadena, CA 91105, (626) 585-0155

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION Place an X n one box only.) Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases OnlyPlace an X in one box for plaint iff and one for defendant}

D 1. U.S. GovernmentPlaintiff

[g) 3. Federal Question U.S. Citizen ofThis State

PTF DEF PTF010

1Incorporated or Principal Place [E] 4of Business in this State

DEF[E ]

Government Not a Party)Citizen of Another State D 2 D 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 0

D 2. U.S. Government

Defendant

04. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship

of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen or Subject of a

Foreign Country 3 D 3

of Business in Another State

Foreign Nation 0 6

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)[g) 1. Original D 2. Removed from D 3. Remanded from R

· d 6. Multi-

D

4. emstate or D 5. Transferred fr?m Another D District

Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District Spec1fy) Litigation

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes [g) No (Check Yes only i f demanded in complaint.

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23: 0 Yes ~ o 0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT:

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute unde r which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite urisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

Declaratory Judgment- 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for Patent Invalidity, Inequitable Conduct (patent), Trade Secret Misappropri ation Cal. Civ. Code§ 3426 et seq.,

lnjuntive Relief- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17200

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).

D400 StateReapportionment

41 0 Antitrust0 430 Banks and Banking

0450 Commerce/ICCRates/Etc.

460 Deportation

470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Org.

D 480 Consumer Credi t

0 490 Cable/Sat V

0850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange

D890 Other StatutoryActions

0 891 Agricultural Acts

D 893 EnvironmentalMatters

0895 Freedom of Info.Act

0 896 Arbitration

899 Admin. ProceduresAct/Review of Appeal of

Agency Decision

0950 Constitutionality ofState Statutes

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

120 Marine

[] 130 Miller Act

D 140 NegotiableInstrument

150 Recovery of

D Overpayment &Enforcement ofJudgment

0 151 Medicare Act

D152 Recovery of

Defaulted StudentLoan (Excl. Vet.)

153 Recovery of

0 Overpayment ofVet. Benefits

O 160 Stockholders'Suits

0 1900therContract

O 210 LandCondemnation

D 220 Foreclosure

O 230 Rent Lease &

D

D

DD

0D

D

D

315 AirplaneProduct Liability

320 Assault, Libel &Slander

330 Fed. Employers'Liability

340 Marine

345 Marine ProductLiability

350 Motor Vehicle

355 Motor VehicleProduct Liability

360 Other PersonalInjury

362 PersonallnjuryMed Malpratice

365 Personal InjuryProduct Liability

367 Health Care/0 Pharmaceutical

Personal InjuryProduct Liability

D368 AsbestosPersonal

Case Number:

D

DD 441 Voting

0 442 Employment

443 Housing/Accommodations

445 American with

0 DisabilitiesEmployment

D446 American with

Disabilities-Other

D

CV-71 (11/13) CIVIL COVER SHEET

720 Labor/Mgmt.Relations

0 740 Railway Labor Act

D751 Family and MedicalLeave Act

D790 Other LaborLitigation

791 Employee Ret. Inc.Act

0 862 Black lung (923)

D 863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))

870 Taxes U.S. Plaintiff or

Defendant)

871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC

7609

Pagel of

6



UNITED T E S DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT oOALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will most likely be initially assigned. This initial assignme

is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.

A: Was this case removed from

state court?

D Yes IB] No Los AngelesWestern

If no, go to Question B. If yes, check the

box to the right that applies, enter the

1corremr>nn1nn division in response to

D Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Western

D Orange Southern

D below, and skip to Section IX.D Riverside or San Bernardino

Eastern

Is the United States, or one

ag,•n,:.esor employees, a party to this

D Yes IB] No

D

D

D

D

Los Angeles DSanta Barbara, or San Luis

D

Orange D

Riverside or San Bernardino

Los Angeles Western

or San LuisWestern

Orange Southern

Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern

Western

C.1. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: C.2. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies:

D 2 or more answers in Column C

D only 1 answer in Column C and no answers in Column D

Your case will initially be assigned to theSOUTHERN DIVISION.

Enter Southern in response to Question D below.

If none applies, answer question C2 to the right.

D 2 or more answers in Column D

D only 1 answer in Column D and no answers in Column C

Your case will initially be assigned to theEASTERN DIVISION.

Enter Eastern in response to Question D below.

If none applies, go to the box below.

Your case will initially be assigned to the

WESTERN DIVISION.

Enter Western in response to Question D below.

CV 71 11/13) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of



UNITED Es DISTRICTcouRT CENTRAL DISTRICT oQLIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

IX a). IDENTICAL CASES Has this action been previously filed in this ourt and dismissed, remanded or dosed? ~ O D YES

If yes, list case number{s):

IX b). RELATED CASES Have any cases been previously filed n this ourt that are related to the present case? D NO ~ Y SIf yes list case number (s): 13-CV-02055 SJO{JEMx)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:

(Check all boxes that apply) ~ A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of aw and fact; or

C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of abor if heard y different udges; or

D. Involve the same patent, trademark or o p y r i g h t ~ one of he factors identified a bove in a, b or c also is present.

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY

OR SELF-REPRESENTED L I T I G A N T ~ : = ; ~ ~ ~ DATE: 30 2014

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or

other papers as required by law. This form, approved y the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to local Rule 3-1 is not filedbut is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Natureof Suit Code Abbreviation

861 HIA

862 Bl

863 DIWC

863 DIWW

864 SSID

865 RSI

Substantive Statementof Cause of Action

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also,include claims y hospitals, skilled nu rsing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program.(42 U.S.C. 1935FF{b))

All claims for Black lung benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. {30 U.S.C.923)

All claims filed y insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; pluall claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. 42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, asamended. 42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed underTitle 16 of the Social Security Act,

amended.

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Socia I Security Act, as amended.(42 u s c 405 (g))

Spicy Beer Mix v. New Castle - Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Spicy Beer Mix v. New Castle - Complaint