Hazzard v. Schaaf
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02921
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Hazzard v. Schaaf, Judge White granted dismissal of the amended complaint and denied Hazzard’s request to be heard.
Gene Hazzard’s claims against the City Defendants were dismissed. His state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; the opinion also states that several other defendants had not appeared.
What happened
In Hazzard v. Schaaf, Gene Hazzard claimed that the defendants used the name “Oakland Promise” without permission and violated federal and California law. He also alleged that the defendants made false statements about the initiative’s tax-exempt status.
The court found that Hazzard did not allege facts showing that he was the first lawful user of the name or that the defendants’ use was likely to confuse consumers. It also found no basis to keep the state-law claims in federal court after dismissing the federal claim.
Judge White granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, dismissed the federal trademark claim, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court also denied Hazzard’s notice requesting to be heard and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Hazzard v. Schaaf · No. 4:22-cv-02921
- Jeffrey White
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Gene Hazzard sued the City of Oakland, Mayor Libby Schaaf, David Silver, Barbara J. Parker, Courtney Ruby, Ed Reiskin, and other defendants. The City Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Hazzard alleged that he applied to use “Oakland Promise” as a fictitious business name and legally owned that name. He alleged that the defendants used the name without authorization. He also alleged that the City Defendants failed to comply with provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and made false statements about the initiative’s status as an organization exempt from federal income tax.
Hazzard asserted claims under the federal Lanham Act, California Corporations Code section 6010(a), and an Oakland ordinance. The opinion states that Hazzard was proceeding without a lawyer. Several other defendants had not appeared.
Court’s Analysis
For an unregistered trademark claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege a valid, protectable mark and a likelihood that the defendant’s use will cause consumer confusion. The plaintiff must also be the first person to use the mark lawfully in commerce.
The court concluded that Hazzard’s own allegations showed he was not the first person to use “Oakland Promise.” Although his alleged use may have started before use by defendants who had not appeared, he did not allege facts showing likely consumer confusion. He did not explain how he used the name or identify any actual confusion. The court therefore found that the trademark allegations did not meet federal pleading requirements and that allowing further amendment would be futile.
After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over the related state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey White granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court dismissed the trademark claim and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. It also denied Hazzard’s notice of request to be heard concerning the redaction of personally identifying information from an exhibit to his filing. The court ordered a separate judgment and directed the Clerk to close the file.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.