New Sensations, Inc v. Does 2-1768

Filing 10

ORDER SEVERING AND DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST DOES 3 THROUGH 1768. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/11/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4

No. C 11-2835 CW
NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,

5

ORDER SEVERING AND
DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE CLAIMS
AGAINST DOES 3
THROUGH 1768

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
DOES 2-1768,
8
Defendants.
9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

On December 22, 2010, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc., filed a

12

complaint, bringing claims for copyright infringement against 1,768

13

Doe Defendants.

14

C 10-5864 PSG (N.D. Cal.).

15

to whom Plaintiff’s original complaint was assigned severed

16

Plaintiff’s claims against Does 2 through 1768, concluding that

17

these claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence,

18

or series of transactions or occurrences from which Plaintiff’s

19

claim against Doe 1 arises.

20

after reassignment to an Article III judge, the claims against Does

21

2 through 1768 be dismissed.

22

See New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1-1768, Case No.
On May 31, 2011, the magistrate judge

The magistrate judge recommended that,

The Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation in

23

part.

24

claim against Doe 2 is sufficiently related to its claims against

25

the remaining Doe Defendants.

26

Defendant has “reproduced and distributed to the public at least a

27

substantial portion of Plaintiff’s copyright work.”

28

This allegation does not suggest that each Doe Defendant engaged in

Plaintiff’s complaint offers no indication that Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff alleges only that each Doe

Compl. ¶ 10.

1

the same infringement or series of infringements.

2

Plaintiff pleads that all Doe Defendants have agreed to violate its

3

copyrights, it offers no factual basis for this allegation.

4

Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims against Does 3 through 1,768 are

5

not properly joined to this action.

6

Although

Accordingly, the Court SEVERS and DISMISSES without prejudice
Plaintiff’s claims against Does 3 through 1,768 based on

8

misjoinder.

9

Defendants within twenty-one days, those actions will be deemed a

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

continuation of the original action for purposes of the statute of

11

limitations.

12

If Plaintiff files new complaints against these

Plaintiff’s action against Doe 2 may go forward.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: 8/11/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2