Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates Incorporated v. Bashas' Incorporated
Filing
20
ORDER granting Bashas' 14 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 5/7/2013.(LFIG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
)
)
)
Bashas’ Inc., et al.,
)
)
Debtors,
)
_________________________________ )
)
Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates,)
)
Inc.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Bashas’ Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
In re:
No. CV 12-01497-PHX-FJM
No. BK 09-16050-JMM
Adv. No. 12-AP-0226-JMM
ORDER
19
20
The court has before it defendant Bashas’ Inc.’s motion to dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiff
21
Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc.’s (“Kubicek”) response (doc. 16), and Bashas’
22
reply (doc. 19).
23
I
24
Kubicek is an architectural firm that formerly employed Bruce Bosley. Even before
25
hiring Bosley, Kubicek performed architectural work on Bashas’ projects. Bosley eventually
26
became the principal architect managing Bashas’ work. Bosley left Kubicek in 2007 and
27
formed his own firm, The Bosley Group, taking with him other Kubicek employees and
28
1
setting off a string of litigation.
2
On July 12, 2009, Bashas’ filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
3
protection. Kubicek was given notice but never filed a proof of claim. Instead, on October
4
27, 2011, Kubicek filed the original Complaint in this action against both Bashas’ and
5
Kubicek, alleging copyright infringement. Kubicek v. Bosley, CV-11-2112-PHX-DGC (the
6
“Bosley Action”). Kubicek alleged that Bosley and Bashas’ willfully infringed and were
7
making unlawful use of Kubicek’s copyrighted architectural plans and misappropriated other
8
proprietary materials in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and common law.
9
On January 12, 2012, Judge Campbell granted Bashas’ motion to refer the claims
10
against Bashas’ to bankruptcy court, while retaining the claims against Bosley. The
11
bankruptcy court eventually discharged Kubicek’s pre-petition claims against Bashas’, but
12
did not dismiss post-petition claims for damages and equitable relief. Kubicek then filed the
13
instant action, asking us to withdraw the reference with respect to its post-petition claims
14
against Bashas’. We granted that motion and Kubicek filed the amended Complaint now
15
before us (doc. 13).
16
In the meantime, Judge Campbell granted in part and denied in part Bosley’s motion
17
for summary judgment in the Bosley Action (doc. 83) and the case went to trial. The jury
18
found in favor of defendants on all claims, concluding that neither the Bosley Group nor
19
Bosley individually is liable to Kubicek for direct, contributory, or vicarious copyright
20
infringement (doc. 167).
21
II
22
In the present case, Kubicek asserts claims against Bashas’ for direct and willful
23
infringement of copyrights and for contributory and vicarious liability for the infringing
24
conduct of The Bosley Group. Given the jury verdict in the Bosley Action, finding that
25
Bosley is not liable for copyright infringement, Kubicek’s current claims against Bashas’ for
26
contributory and vicarious liability based on Bosley’s infringing conduct are foreclosed.
27
With respect to Bashas’ liability for direct copyright infringement, the first amended
28
Complaint generally alleges that Bashas’ continues to retain infringing documents, refuses
-2-
1
to surrender such documents, and has used and/or made unauthorized copies of those
2
documents, all constituting ongoing infringements of Kubicek’s copyrighted works and
3
misappropriation of its propriety materials. FAC §§ 54-55, 57. Kubicek seeks a declaration
4
resolving any question regarding the right, title and ownership interest in Kubicek’s
5
copyrighted work.
6
Bashas’ moves to dismiss, arguing that Kubicek has failed to identify any claims
7
against Bashas’ for post-petition conduct.1 Kubicek argues in response that its post-petition
8
claims cannot be pled with more particularity because information for more detailed factual
9
allegations is solely within the control of Bashas’ and it has had inadequate opportunity to
10
conduct discovery.
III
11
12
Copyright protection applies to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
13
medium of expression,” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), including technical drawings and “architectural
14
works.” Id. § 102(a)(5), (8). Registration of a copyrighted work is a prerequisite for
15
bringing a civil action for copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Receipt by the U.S.
16
Copyright Office of an application for registration is sufficient for purposes of initiating
17
litigation. Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 619-21 (9th Cir. 2010).
18
To establish copyright infringement, a claimant must show (1) ownership of a valid
19
copyright, and (2) copying of protected elements of the copyrighted work. Feist Pub’l, Inc.
20
v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1296 (1991).
21
We agree with Bashas’ that Kubicek has failed to allege sufficient facts “to raise a
22
right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,
23
127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). A pleading that asserts only conclusions and formulaic
24
recitations of the elements of the cause of action is insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
25
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
26
1
27
28
In ruling on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we do not consider matters referred to by
Bashas’ that are outside the pleadings, with the exception of rulings in the Bosley Action of
which we take judicial notice.
-3-
1
Here, the majority of the allegations contained in the first amended Complaint involve
2
conduct that occurred between March 2007 and August 2009, before Bashas’ Chapter 11
3
filing. It is already established that pre-petition claims against Bashas’ are discharged.
4
Therefore, we consider Bashas’ claims related to post-petition conduct only.
5
Kubicek broadly alleges that Bashas’ willfully infringed copyrighted architectural
6
plans and misappropriated proprietary materials, FAC ¶ 1; Bashas’ “supplied the Bosleys
7
with [Kubicek] copyrighted and proprietary material from Bashas’ own file,” FAC ¶ 42; and
8
“Bashas’ did not disclose, and actively concealed from [Kubicek], the fact they had acquired
9
copies and were making unauthorized and unlawful use of [Kubicek’s] Copyrighted Works
10
and proprietary materials,” FAC ¶ 44. Kubicek argues that Bashas’ has wrongfully copied,
11
used and retained copyrighted materials, but it fails to identify those materials and fails to
12
provide any details regarding how or when the materials were copied or used.
13
At a minimum, Kubicek must identify which materials it alleges were infringed and
14
allege that it has either registered those materials with the U.S. Copyright Office or applied
15
to that office for copyright registration. Kubicek identifies only two architectural designs in
16
the Complaint that have registered copyrights—the design for “Food City by Bashas’ Store
17
# 141, and “A New Bashas’ Market Store” # 166. FAC ¶ 37. But it makes no claims that
18
Bashas’ has infringed these copyrights.
19
Kubicek argues that it is unable to plead more specific facts regarding the
20
infringement because it has had inadequate opportunity to conduct discovery. The claims
21
asserted against Bosley and Bashas’ were originally filed almost two years ago. The
22
bifurcated claims asserted against Bosley mirror the claims against Bashas’. These claims
23
have been fully explored in the Bosley Action through discovery, jury trial, and now
24
judgment. During these proceedings Kubicek certainly had sufficient opportunity to frame
25
its Complaint in such a way as to satisfy the minimal pleading standards of Iqbal.
26
But here there are no allegations that would support a claim for post-petition
27
infringement. Kubicek identifies no instances of construction, remodeling, utilization or
28
copying of any specific architectural plan or other misappropriation of its proprietary
-4-
1
materials since the date of the Chapter 11 filing. Instead, Kubicek’s claims for both
2
copyright infringement and state law claims do not rise above the level of speculation.
3
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Bashas’ motion to dismiss (doc. 14). The clerk shall
4
5
enter final judgment.
DATED this 7th day of May, 2013.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?