Oppenheimer et al v. Allvoices. Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER (1) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH CLAIM AND (2) CONTINUING THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' fourth claim under Section 43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act. Allvoices sha ll file an answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of this order. Under the circumstances, the court CONTINUES the initial case management conference from Thursday, July 10, 2014 to Thursday, September 11, 201 4 at 11:00 a.m in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by September 4, 2014. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/3/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
DAVID OPPENHEIMER, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 14-00499 LB
ORDER (1) DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH
CLAIM AND (2) CONTINUING THE
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
ALLVOICES, INC.,

15

Defendant.
[Re: ECF No. 28]

16

_____________________________________/

17

David Oppenheimer and Performance Impressions, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) sued defendant Allvoices,

18

Inc. (“Allvoices”), alleging trademark and copyright violations. See First Amended Complaint, ECF

19

No. 1.1 In April 2014, Allvoices moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. See

20

Motion, ECF No. 23. On June 10, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part AllVoices’s

21

motion. 4/25/14 Order, ECF No. 28. Specifically, the court concluded that Plaintiffs’ first claim for

22

direct copyright infringement, second claim for contributory copyright infringement, and third claim

23

for vicarious copyright infringement survive, but dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ fourth

24

claim under Section 43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act. Id. at 21. The court then gave Plaintiffs until July

25

1, 2014 to file a Second Amended Complaint to attempt to re-allege their fourth claim. Id. July 1,

26

2014 was two days ago, but Plaintiffs have not filed a Second Amendment Complaint. See

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 14-00499 LB
ORDER

1
2

generally Docket.
A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action.

3

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a

4

claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following

5

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage

6

its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic

7

alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v.

8

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); Ghazali v. Moran,

9

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158

12
For the Northern District of California

precedent before the judge can do anything.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support

13

dismissal, . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El

14

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).

15

Here, these factors support the court’s dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs’ fourth claim. By

16

dismissing the claim without prejudice, the court gave Plaintiffs’ another chance to sufficiently re-

17

allege it, but Plaintiffs have chosen not to do so and have provided no explanation for their failure.

18

The court cannot allow this failure to keep this action from moving forward. Accordingly, the court

19

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ fourth claim under Section 43(a)(1) of the Lanham

20

Act. Allvoices shall file an answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint within 14 days from the

21

date of this order.

22

Under the circumstances, the court CONTINUES the initial case management conference from

23

Thursday, July 10, 2014 to Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 11:00 a.m in Courtroom C, 15th

24

Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties shall

25

file a joint case management statement by September 4, 2014.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2014

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28

C 14-00499 LB
ORDER

2