Arik Rudich v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studio, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER staying 18 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Sony/ATV and Cinram have until 10/15/08 to file brief in opposition to defendant Metro Golden Meyer's motion to transfer, or advise the court that they do not oppose the motion. If defendants Sony/ATV and Cinram oppose the motion, defendant Metro Goldwyn Mayer and plaintiff will have five days from the date of service of the opposition brief to file their reply briefs. Signed by Judge Barbara B Crabb on 10/2/08. (vob)[Transferred from Wisconsin Western on 10/24/2008.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------A R IK RUDICH, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -3 8 9 - b b c v. M E T R O GOLDWYN MAYER S T U D IO , INC., SONY/ATV M U S I C PUBLISHING LLC, and C IN R AM , INC., D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------This civil suit for copyright infringement is before the court on defendant Metro G oldw yn Mayer Studio, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay the case pursuant to the first-filed rule or transfer venue to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). M etro Goldwyn Mayer contends that this action should be stayed or dismissed because it is duplicative of a lawsuit that Metro Goldwyn Mayer filed first in the Central District of C alifo rn ia . In the alternative, it asks the court to transfer the case, pointing out that the plaintiff has no connection to the Western District of Wisconsin and has chosen this district so lely for the speed of its docket and expertise in intellectual property law. D efendan ts Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC and Cinram, Inc. have not weighed in on defendant Metro Goldwyn Mayer's motion because they were served shortly before the

m otion came under advisement.

They should be given an opportunity to be heard,

particularly because a decision on the motion could result in transfer to the Central District of California. Moreover, in deciding the motion to transfer, I must consider "the

co n ven ien ce of the parties and witnesses." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Without hearing from defendan ts Sony/ATV and Cinram regarding their position on whether the transfer is convenient for them and their potential witnesses, I cannot properly assess the factors releva n t to transfer. Cf. 15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Ju risd ictio n 3d § 3849, at 164 (2007) ("[W]hen transfer would be more convenient for one defendan t, but less convenient for another defendant, courts have sustained the plaintiff's initial choice of forum."). Therefore, defendant Metro Goldwyn Mayer's motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case is STAYED and defendants Sony/ATV and Cinram will have until October 15, 2008 in which to file a brief in opposition to defendant Metro Goldwyn Mayer's motion to tran sfer or advise the court that they do not oppose the motion. If defendants Sony/ATV and Cinram oppose the motion, defendant Metro Goldwyn Mayer and plaintiff will have five

2

days from the date of service of the opposition brief in which to file their briefs in reply. E n tered this 2 n d day of October, 2008. B Y THE COURT:

/s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3