AF Holding, LLC v. Doe

Filing 36

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12

AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW MAGSUMBOL,

13

Defendant.

14

) Case No. 12-4221 SC
)
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
) MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15
16
17

Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC ("Plaintiff") filed its first

18

amended complaint ("FAC") naming Defendant Andrew Magsumbol

19

("Defendant") in this copyright infringement matter on December 6,

20

2012.

21

ECF No. 8, and then moved to require that Plaintiff, a foreign

22

corporation, post a $73,875 undertaking to cover Defendant's costs

23

and fees per California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, ECF

24

No. 20.

25

motion, and has not yet ruled on it.

26

ECF No. 12.

Defendant answered the FAC on January 8, 2013,

The Court set a hearing date for March 15, 2013, on that

Plaintiff now asks the Court to grant a voluntary dismissal of

27

its claims without prejudice, "in light of the recent orders by

28

Courts in the Northern District requiring Plaintiff to post an

1

undertaking of nearly $50,000" in AF Holdings v. Trinh, No. 12-cv-

2

02393-CRB (N.D. Cal. 2012) and AF Holdings v. Navasca, No. 12-cv-

3

2396-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2012).

4

Plaintiff argues that requiring it to post an undertaking would be

5

too expensive "simply in order [for Plaintiff] to proceed with its

6

claims against a single infringer" in what Plaintiff considers "a

7

routine digital infringement case."

8

Plaintiff's counsel is currently attempting to withdraw from this

9

matter, and Plaintiff "cannot currently find alternative counsel --

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

ECF No. 35 ("Pl.'s MTD") at 1-2.

Id. at 2.

Moreover,

and does not wish to expend effort and money to do so."

Id.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court may

12

dismiss this action at Plaintiff's request, on terms the Court

13

considers proper.

14

this case knowing the rules of this jurisdiction and the risks of

15

litigation, and now he seeks dismissal of his case without

16

prejudice so that he can bring it another day.

17

for requesting dismissal are not compelling.

18

DENIED.

The Court declines to do so.

Plaintiff brought

Plaintiff's reasons
Plaintiff's motion is

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

25
Dated: February ___, 2013

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2