BLT Restaurant Group LLC v. Tourondel
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23285, 855 F. Supp. 2d 4, 2012 WL 592499 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if they are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy, which is satisfied when they share a "common nucleus of operative fact."
Facts:
- BLT Restaurant Group (BLT) and chef Laurent Tourondel entered into a contractual arrangement to develop a series of restaurants using the trade name BLT (Bistro Laurent Tourondel).
- Tourondel served as Executive Chef and was responsible for "back of the house" activities, including menu development.
- The parties' operating agreement contained provisions governing Tourondel's use of "Confidential Information" and ownership of "Proprietary Materials" developed during his tenure.
- After the restaurants achieved success, Tourondel exercised his contractual right to depart from the business relationship with BLT.
- Upon his departure, BLT assigned Tourondel the trademarks "BLT" and "BISTRO LAURENT TOURONDEL," and Tourondel licensed their use back to BLT for existing restaurants.
- Tourondel, in conjunction with other investors, subsequently opened a new series of restaurants under the trade name LT.
- BLT alleged that Tourondel's new restaurants copied recipes, dish names, menu combinations, and pricing strategies developed at and for the BLT restaurants.
Procedural Posture:
- BLT Restaurant Group filed suit against Laurent Tourondel, Michael Cinque, and LT Burger, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- BLT filed an Amended Complaint asserting eight causes of action, including a federal claim under the Lanham Act and state-law claims for breach of contract.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
- The District Court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claims for deceptive acts and practices, contract reformation, and unjust enrichment, and denied the remainder of the motion.
- The parties proceeded with written discovery.
- Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss portions of the remaining state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction and a separate motion for partial summary judgment on the contract and Lanham Act claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law breach of contract claims when the sole federal claim is for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and both sets of claims arise from the same underlying business relationship, its dissolution, and the subsequent competition between the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Michael H. Dolinger
Yes. A federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. The court determines that the analysis does not depend on a narrow view of the minimum evidence required for the federal claim, but rather on whether the evidence likely to be used in the case substantially overlaps between the federal and state claims. Here, all claims arise from two broad areas of historical fact: the parties' joint effort to create the BLT restaurants, and Tourondel's subsequent departure and alleged use of his knowledge of the BLT business operation to compete. Evidence of the parties' pre-separation dealings, recipes, and marketing strategies is essential to adjudicating both the state contract claims and the federal unfair competition claim. Because there is a substantial overlap of facts and a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to litigate these claims in one suit, the Article III test embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is satisfied.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a broad and practical approach to supplemental jurisdiction, emphasizing factual overlap over a rigid, element-by-element comparison of claims. The court's focus on the 'evidence likely to be used' rather than the 'minimum theoretically necessary evidence' provides a flexible standard that promotes judicial economy. By looking at the entire context of the business relationship and its breakdown, the ruling makes it easier for litigants to resolve all related disputes arising from a common narrative in a single federal forum, so long as there is a valid federal 'anchor' claim.
