Beckely v. Raith et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING SERVICE OF IFP COMPLAINT OVERSEAS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR IN PERSON AT NEXT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (NOVEMBER 7, 2013) by Judge William Alsup [denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 41 Motion to Compel]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

MATTHEW BECKELY, p/k/a DYLAN
MATTHEWS and D-MATT, and d/b/a
AMERADA MUSIC,

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

No. C 13-02707 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
REINHARD RAITH, in his personal and
professional capacities, p/k/a “Crazy Frog” and
“Voodoo & Serano,” RONALD CARROLL,
professionally known as Ron Carroll and
R.O.N.N, in his personal and professional
capacities, CERESIA BLANCHARD, p/k/a
“Ceresia,” in her personal and professional
capacities, PATRICK WEBER, in his personal
and professional capacities, VOODOO MUSIC
GMBH, EMBASSY OF MUSIC GMBH,
KONRAD VON LOHNEISEN, in his personal
and professional capacities, ONE
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability corporation, YOUTUBE, LLC,
and DOES 1–100,

ORDER DENYING
SERVICE OF IFP
COMPLAINT OVERSEAS
AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
AND ORDER FOR
PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR
IN PERSON AT NEXT
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
(NOVEMBER 7, 2013)

Defendants.
/
INTRODUCTION
In this contract and copyright dispute, pro se plaintiff moves for reconsideration and to

26

compel service overseas. The motions are DENIED. Plaintiff is further ordered to appear in

27

person at the next case management conference.

28

1

STATEMENT

2

As this action comes to the undersigned judge, plaintiff has been granted in forma

3

pauperis status by the previous judge. Because of plaintiff’s IFP status, the United States

4

Marshals Service had undertaken service of the complaint. The previous judge, however,

5

informed plaintiff on July 23 that the Marshals could not serve overseas defendants and therefore

6

ordered that plaintiff would be responsible for service of those defendants (Dkt. No. 13).

7

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that order and to compel our Clerk to serve the

8

overseas defendants.

suing American musical artists and German musical producers and promoters (Dkt. No. 1-1

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff is a resident of Michigan, but selected this district for his action. Plaintiff is

10

United States District Court

9

¶¶ 5–13). Plaintiff’s lengthy pleadings allege that he had various contractual agreements

12

with defendants and participated with them, in some capacity, to create musical productions.

13

Plaintiff’s claims boil down to three items. First, plaintiff alleges that defendants breached their

14

contracts with him. Second, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his copyright in the

15

musical production they allegedly created together. Third, plaintiff alleges defendants damaged

16

his reputation in the music industry by circulating several communications about him and his

17

conduct (id. ¶¶ 94–233).

18

Plaintiff failed to attend the September 11 ADR phone conference and the September 12

19

case management conference. An order to show cause was issued on September 13. Plaintiff

20

argues that he had technical difficulties receiving notice of the appearances due to his inability

21

to access PACER, unreliable email, and a power outage (Dkt. Nos. 36, 43).

22
23

ANALYSIS
This is not a typical IFP action. A typical IFP action would involve, for example, an

24

impoverished homeowner being sued to remove him from his home. Here, our plaintiff is IFP.

25

He is seeking large sums and injunctive relief based on his commercial dealings. Usually

26

copyright infringement actions are brought by counsel. Evidently no counsel was interested in

27

taking plaintiff’s case.

28
2

1

This order addresses two problems: plaintiff’s attempt to compel the clerk to serve the

2

overseas defendants, all at taxpayer expense, and plaintiff’s failure to appear at his ADR phone

3

conference and case management conference.

4

1.

OVERSEAS SERVICE.

5

The first problem is plaintiff’s request that the taxpayers pay for overseas service of his

6

complaint. Plaintiff argues that because of his IFP status, the taxpayer should do this for him.

7

Plaintiff argues that printing costs for his 200 page complaint (including attachments) and costs

8

to comply with the Hague Convention are prohibitive. Plaintiff therefore requests that the Clerk

9

print his complaint and send it by first-class mail to defendants in Germany.
Service by first-class mail would be inadequate under the Hague Convention on the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

12

Proper service to Germany would involve service through a “Central Authority” and may require

13

translation of plaintiff’s entire complaint. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

14

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S.

15

No. 6638. While Article 10 of the Convention allows service by mail, Germany has objected

16

to that provision. The German defendants cannot, therefore, be served by mail. United States

17

Department of State, Service of Legal Documents Abroad,

18

http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_680.html (last visited Oct. 8, 2013). The only

19

alternative appears to be service through Germany’s “Central Authority” which would involve

20

considerable cost. This order declines to require taxpayers to cover these service and translation

21

costs.

22

The Third Circuit has held that “the granting of IFP status exempts litigants from filing

23

fees only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing documents [or]

24

service of documents other than the complaint.” Porter v. Dept. of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, n.3

25

(3rd Cir. 2009). Our court of appeals has not decided the issue, namely, whether the Court must

26

arrange for serving overseas defendants at public expense when the IFP plaintiff is not

27

incarcerated and the action appears to be purely commercial. This order holds that the Court is

28

not responsible for service under these circumstances.
3

1

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that, on its face, it raises no

2

compelling or special circumstances that would merit making the public pay for overseas

3

service. This is, however, without prejudice to plaintiff suing overseas defendants if he himself

4

can properly and timely serve them. Unless plaintiff advises the Court by NOVEMBER 7, 2013,

5

AT NOON,

6

dismissed.

that he will incur the expense of service to Germany, the overseas defendants will be

7

2.

8

The second problem addressed by this order is plaintiff’s failure to appear for the

9

FAILURE TO APPEAR.

September 11 ADR phone conference and the September 12 case management conference.
Plaintiff says that he did not know PACER required a credit card and therefore was not notified

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

about the ADR phone conference. Plaintiff further reports that he had a power outage during the

12

time the ADR phone conference was scheduled. Because he relies on an internet based phone,

13

plaintiff says he would have been unable to attend by phone even if he had known about the

14

ADR conference. Plaintiff has subsequently purchased a pre-paid credit card and a pre-paid cell

15

phone to ensure his future attendance (Dkt. Nos. 36, 43).

16

Plaintiff does not address his failure to appear at the case management conference

17

(ibid.). It is possible that he is confusing the case management conference with the ADR

18

phone conference. Plaintiff may not appear by phone for case management conferences.

19

Our courtroom is not configured with adequate audio equipment for a phone appearance to be

20

a viable option. Plaintiff must appear in person.

21

Plaintiff sued in this district. It is reasonable for plaintiff appear in the district in which

22

he sued and to require that he do so. Plaintiff’s recent absences will be excused, but if he does

23

not appear in person at the next case management conference, this action will be dismissed.

24

The next case management conference will be NOVEMBER 7, 2013, AT 11:00 A.M. If plaintiff

25

fails to appear, in person, his case will be dismissed.

26
27
28
4

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. Plaintiff will appear in
person for his case management conference on NOVEMBER 7, 2013, AT 11:00 A.M.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: October 9, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5