Eric Rosenbaum v. McDonalds Corporation et al

Filing 11

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/15/2016. (vdr)

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

CV 16-2063 FMO (AJWx)

Title

Eric Rosenbaum v. McDonald’s Corp., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 11, 2016

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause

On March 25, 2016, plaintiff Eric Rosenbaum aka NORM (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
alleging claims for: (1) copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.; (2) “unfair competition”
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) misappropriation of likeness under Cal. Civ. Code
§ 3344; and (4) false advertising in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (See Dkt.
1, Complaint at ¶¶ 58-96).
The copyrighted work “at issue in this litigation” is located in Brooklyn, New York, and the
alleged infringement occurred “in dozens of McDonald’s restaurants in Europe and Asia.” (See
Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 9 & 10). Copyright claims “may be instituted in the district in which the
defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). The Ninth Circuit
“interprets this provision to allow venue in any judicial district where . . . the defendant would be
subject to personal jurisdiction.” Unicolors Inc. v. Myth Clothing Co., Inc., 2016 WL 738289, *3
(C.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th
Cir. 2010)). For federal courts located in California, “the jurisdictional analyses under state law
and federal due process are the same.” See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d
797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (“A court of this state may exercise
jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United
States.”). Here, plaintiff alleges that “[v]enue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
[§§] 1391 and 1400,” (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 4), but does not set forth the basis for venue or
personal jurisdiction over defendant. (See, generally, Complaint). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that no later than April 15, 2016, plaintiff shall either show cause in writing why his claims should
not be transferred to the Eastern District of New York or dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction over defendant. Alternatively, plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint addressing
the deficiencies set forth above.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 1 of 1