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 108.34.138.72. 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)

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

108.34.138.72). 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