Skydiving School, Inc. v. Sky-Med, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SKYDIVING SCHOOL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOJUMP AMERICA, LLC,
GOJUMP HAWAII LLC, and
MICHAEL VETTER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00292-DKW-WRP
ORDER DECLINING TO
EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER COUNTS
III AND IV OF THE COMPLAINT
AND DISMISSING THE SAME
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court following the entry of an Order directing
briefing on whether the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over two
state-law-based claims, Counts III & IV of the Complaint, following the dismissal of
Counts I & II—the sole federal claims in this case. 	Having reviewed the parties’
briefing, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over
Counts III & IV, as explained below.
A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim
when, inter alia, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction….” 	28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 	“The decision whether to
continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal
Case 1:23-cv-00292-DKW-WRP Document 77 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s discretion.” 	Foster v.
Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, some procedural background provides context for the Court’s decision.
First, in August 2023, Defendants Sky-Med, Inc. dba Pacific Skydiving (Sky-Med)
and Guy Banal (Banal, and, with Sky-Med, the Sky-Med Defendants), on one hand,
and Defendants GoJump America, LLC (GJA), GoJump Hawaii LLC (GJH), and
Michael Vetter (Vetter, and, with GJA and GJH, the GoJump Defendants), on the
other, filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. 	Dkt. Nos. 36, 42. 	Before ruling on
the Sky-Med Defendants’ motion to dismiss, however, Plaintiff Skydiving School,
Inc. (SSI or Plaintiff) and the Sky-Med Defendants reached a settlement, resulting in
the Sky-Med Defendants’ motion to dismiss being withdrawn. 	See Dkt. Nos.
58-59.
On November 22, 2023, the Court entered an Order dismissing Counts I & II
of the Complaint against the GoJump Defendants. 	Dkt. No. 60. 	Counts I & II
alleged claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal law.
In the same Order, after dismissal of Counts I & II, the Court also directed briefing
from the parties on whether the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over
Counts III & IV. 	This was because Counts III & IV, which alleged claims for
breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations, appeared
premised upon State law.
Case 1:23-cv-00292-DKW-WRP Document 77 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff and the GoJump Defendants filed their
briefing, as directed. 	Dkt. Nos. 65-66. 	Plaintiff requests that the Court retain
jurisdiction over this case for “60 to 90 days”−in essence, to allow Plaintiff and the
Sky-Med Defendants “to resolve their differences on certain settlement terms,
execute the settlement documents, and close the settlement,” which would include
dismissing all claims against the Sky-Med Defendants. 	Dkt. No. 66 at 5.
Finally, on February 15, 2024, the Court entered a Stipulation for Dismissal
With Prejudice of all claims by Plaintiff against the Sky-Med Defendants. 	Dkt. No.
76. 	In other words, the principal reason Plaintiff expresses for retaining
jurisdiction—finalizing its settlement with the Sky-Med Defendants—has come to
fruition.1 	In this light, given that all federal claims, against both the Sky-Med and
GoJump Defendants, have been dismissed, the Court finds no reason to retain
jurisdiction over the State law claims brought in the Complaint.2 	Therefore, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III & IV, and
1 Although it is not clear, Plaintiff also arguably contends that supplemental jurisdiction could be
retained (1) to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists, and (2) because Plaintiff “believes
that additional claims may exist against the GoJump Defendants….” 	Dkt. No. 66 at 4-5. 	First,
the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and GJH are Hawaii entities. 	Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 8. Therefore,
contrary to Plaintiff’s apparent suggestion, diversity jurisdiction does not exist here. 	Second, the
“additional claims” Plaintiff identifies do not state any federal claims. 	Finally, Plaintiff also
asserts that the Court “may remand” this case to State court. 	Dkt. No. 66 at 5. 	This case,
however, was not removed from State court, and, thus, there is no State court to which it can be
remanded.
2 In its supplemental briefing, the GoJump Defendants assert that, depending on various uncertain
variables, the Court “may” wish to retain supplemental jurisdiction in this case. 	Dkt. No. 65 at
4-5. 	Upon review of the GoJump Defendants’ position, which is essentially premised upon a
serious of known unknowns, the Court is unconvinced that the same warrants retaining
supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III & IV.
Case 1:23-cv-00292-DKW-WRP Document 77 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 	See Foster, 504 F.3d at 1052
(affirming the dismissal of State law claims without prejudice after the district court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). 	The remaining portion of the
GoJump Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 42, concerning Counts III & IV, is
therefore DENIED AS MOOT.
The sole remaining matter in this case is the GoJump Defendants’ motion for
attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs, Dkt. No. 69, which shall continue as
scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00292-DKW-WRP Document 77 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>