Opinion
Case No. 2:11-CV-01010-JAM-DAD.
August 30, 2011
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Fabral, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss, in part, and Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. #10). Plaintiff ASC Profiles, Inc. ("Plaintiff") timely filed a statement of non-opposition (Doc. #21), in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), and clarified the scope of Count III of its Complaint (Doc. #2).
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was originally scheduled for August 17, 2011.
After carefully considering the papers submitted in this matter, it is hereby ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, in part, and Motion for a More Definite Statement is GRANTED, as follows:
1. Plaintiff's claims in Count III for trademark infringement under Alaska Stat. § 45.50.180, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 14245, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-451(a), and Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 110H § 12 are dismissed with prejudice;
2. Plaintiff's claims in Count III for trademark dilution under the Alaska Stat. § 45.50.180 and Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 35-11i(c) are dismissed with prejudice;
3. Plaintiff's prayer for profits and damages in Count III under Del. Code Ann. Title 6 § 3313, La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 51:223.1, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 10 § 1530, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 417.06(1), N.H. Rev. Stat. § 350-A:12, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360- l, R.I. Gen. Laws 6-2-12, and Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. § 16.29 are dismissed with prejudice;
4. Plaintiff's claim under "Count V" for dilution under the common law of California is dismissed with prejudice; and
5. Plaintiff's claims under Count III are only asserted under the state statutes listed in paragraph 37 of its Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2011