The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff Chase Hayes, an Individual, filed a fourth amended complaint for "Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws and Unfair Competition" [Doc. No. 12]. The Court previously granted Plaintiff Hayes' motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") [Doc. Nos. 2, 5]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is once again subject to mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's fifth attempt to state a viable cause of action against Defendant Guru Denim, Inc. Although the Court previously set forth the procedural history of this case in its May 27, 2010 order, it bears repeating in light of the Court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's action without further leave to amend.
On May 5, 2010, Plaintiffs Chase Hayes and www.womendesignerclothes.com, a California business entity of unknown status filed a complaint for "Negligence and Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws." [Doc. No. 1.] The following day, Plaintiffs submitted a first amended complaint ("FAC"), which contained an additional claim for malicious prosecution. [Doc. No. 3.] The FAC stated, in its entirety:*fn1
Defendant, GURU DENIM, INC., was negligent in taking over $100,000 in Used and Offprice Jeans from Plaintiff under Defendant's claim of violating their trademarks and copyrights. First, Used Jeans is neither trademark infringement nor unfair competition. Second, Defendant sold the offprice Jeans to a third party whom sold them to plaintiff (EX A).
Defendant MALICIOUS created a story about a Hoodie that they purchase from Plaintiff website and used that claim to shut down Plaintiff website and file a case which in the end ask the court for a dimissal of the action, without prejudice (see EX B and attachments). [Doc. No. 3, p.1-2 (emphasis in original).]
On May 10, the Court dismissed the FAC without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and because corporate plaintiff, www.womendesignclothes.com, could not proceed without counsel and payment of the required filing fee of $350. [Doc. No. 5.]
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on May 15, which failed to cure any of the deficiencies identified in the Court's May 10 order. [Doc. No. 7.] Indeed, Plaintiffs' SAC was identical to the FAC, except for the retitled caption which identified the cause of action as "Unfair Competition" in place of "Negligence and Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws [and] Malicious Prosecution." [See Doc. Nos. 3, 7.]
On May 19, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' SAC without prejudice. In its order, the Court again explained that, Plaintiffs still failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' state-based claim, and www.womendesignclothes.com could not proceed unless it obtained counsel and paid the $350 filing fee. [Doc. No. 8.] The Court further advised Plaintiffs if they filed a third amended complaint that did not remedy the noted deficiencies, Plaintiffs' claim was subject to being dismissed with prejudice. [See id. at p.4.]
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on May 27, which failed to cure any of the noted deficiencies. [Doc. No. 10.] In fact, the third amended complaint was identical to the second amended complaint, except for the amount of damages sought. In dismissing Plaintiffs' third amended complaint, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs that if they filed a fourth amended complaint that did not correct the pleading deficiencies, the Court would not provide any further opportunities to amend. [Doc. No. 11.]
On June 8, Plaintiff Hayes filed a fourth amended complaint. [Doc. No. 12.] While Plaintiff has attempted to correct one of the noted deficiencies-by removing www.womendesignclothes.com as a named plaintiff-the fourth amended complaint still fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be ...