New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 - 1474

Filing 25

ORDER re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Doe #37, IP Address Plaintiff's response due 11/14/2011.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/1/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 11 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NEW SENSATIONS, INC., No. C 11-2770 MEJ 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 DOES 1-1,474, 15 ORDER RE DOE DEFENDANT #37's MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 22 Defendants. 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474 19 Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to 20 Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file 21 sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. 22 Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for 23 Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve 24 subpoenas on Does 1-1,474’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including 26 the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs 27 provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from 28 the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or 1 2 modify the subpoena). Id. Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Doe Defendant #37 (I.P. Address 3 Dkt. No. 22. In his motion, Doe #37 requests that the subpoena be quashed as to 4 him and the case against him dismissed because he does not reside, work, or conduct business in 5 California; has not contracted to supply services in California; the IP address that is identified as 6 assigned to him is not within the jurisdiction of this Court; he has no real property in California; he 7 does not consent to personal jurisdiction in California; he has no business or personal contacts in 8 California; and he has no significant relationship with California. Id. at 3. #37. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to either: (1) file a voluntary dismissal of 11 Doe Defendant #37, without prejudice to filing a complaint against him in the proper jurisdiction; or 12 For the Northern District of California Based on this information, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Doe Defendant 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 (2) show cause why the Court should not grant Doe Defendant #37’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff 13 shall file its response by November 14, 2011. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: November 1, 2011 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?