Novelty Textile Inc v. Charlotte Russe Inc et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/12/2013. SEE ORDER. (im)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4953 PA (VBKx)

Title

Novelty Textile, Inc. v. Charlotte Russe, Inc., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 29, 2013

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

None

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiff Novelty
Textile, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges claims for copyright infringement against defendants
Charlotte Russe, Inc. and A’Gaci, L.L.C. According to the FAC, defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. is
alleged to have infringed a copyright owned by Plaintiff (Design NV-2011). Defendant A’Gaci, L.L.C.
is alleged to have infringed two copyrights owned by Plaintiff (Design NV-2011 and Design NV-1838).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), which allows for permissive joinder, provides:
Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20(a)(2) (emphasis added); see also League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). “The first prong, the ‘same transaction’
requirement, refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d
1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997).
Based on the factual allegations in the FAC, it does not appear that there is a question of fact or
law common to all defendants, nor is it clear that Plaintiff’s claims against defendants arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence. Specifically, it is not apparent what connection, if any, each defendant
has with one another. Nor are any facts alleged in the FAC to satisfy Rule 20(a)(2). See, e.g., Star
Fabrics, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49204 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2013) (Order to
Show Cause).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4953 PA (VBKx)

Date

Title

July 29, 2013

Novelty Textile, Inc. v. Charlotte Russe, Inc., et al.

The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than August 12, 2013, why
one or more defendants should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
18, 20, 21; see also Coughlin,130 F.3d at 1351 (finding misjoinder where “[e]ach claim raises
potentially different issues, and must be viewed in a separate and individual light by the Court.”).
In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff may, if it so chooses, dismiss its claims
against all but the first-named defendant in this action and a file separate actions against the remaining
defendants with new complaints and filing fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2