Hayes v. Dajani et al,

Filing 51

ORDER Re Defendants' Response. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

GREG HAYES,

9

No. C-11-1702 EMC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
v.
(Docket No. 50)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

MUSA DAJANI, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

In its order of December 21, 2011, the Court ordered Defendants to file a proof of service

16

establishing that they served their opposition to the preliminary injunction on Mr. Hayes back in

17

August 2011. See Docket No. 49 (order). Defendants have now filed a response to the Court’s

18

order. In their response, Defendants indicate that they e-filed their opposition on August 10, 2011.

19

See Docket Nos. 18-19 (opposition and supporting declaration).

20

That Defendants e-filed their opposition, however, does not mean that Mr. Hayes was

21

thereby served as a result. In fact, the electronic receipts for the filing indicates that the opposition

22

and supporting papers had not been electronically mailed to Mr. Hayes. Thus, it was incumbent on

23

Defendants to manually serve Mr. Hayes. See generally Gen. Order 45. Defendants are advised

24

that, as a general matter, pro se litigants in this Court must be manually served absent an

25

order from the Court permitting participating in e-filing as registered ECF users.

26

Fortunately, Defendants’ error in this instance was not prejudicial to Mr. Hayes. As the

27

Court has previously held, Mr. Hayes’s motion for a preliminary injunction was without merit for

28

various reasons -- e.g., because the parklet that was built was not based on the copyrighted drawing

1

and because Mr. Hayes failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. The Court emphasizes that

2

its order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction simply means that the Court shall not stop

3

construction of and/or tear down the parklet at issue. The order does not resolve the issue of

4

whether or not there was copyright infringement based on Defendants’ alleged use of the

5

copyrighted drawing to obtain the permit for the parklet.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: December 22, 2011

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2