Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Doe

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Administrative Motion to Relate Case C11-1957 JCS (filed in case C11-1957 JCS) with C11-5630 YGR and C12-0469 HRL. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 2/9/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2012)

Case3:11-cv-01957-JCS Document14 Filed02/03/12 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Aaron K. McClellan - 197185
[e-mail]
Steven W. Yuen - 230768
[e-mail]
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-5530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LIUXIA WONG
In Case No. C 12-00469 HRL

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Case No.: C 11-01957 JCS
(C 11-05630 RS and C 11-05630 HRL)

Plaintiff,

13
14

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
BE RELATED AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION

v.
DOES 1-48,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Liuxia Wong in action number C 12-00469 HRL brings this administrative motion for

19

the court to order that action number C 11-01957 JCS (now dismissed), and action numbers C 11-

20

05630 RS and C 11-05630 HRL should be related and assigned to the Honorable Joseph C. Spero.

21

Mrs. Wong brings this administrative motion as the refiling party, Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

22

(hereafter “Hard Drive”) failed to do so. Before bringing this motion, Mrs. Wong contacted Hard

23

Drive to determine whether it would stipulate to having these cases related, and reassigned to Judge

24

Spero, but have not received any response. (Declaration of Steven Yuen (hereafter “Yuen Decl.”) at

25

1:24-2:6 (¶ 2).) Given Civil L.R. 3-12’s requirement that a party “must promptly file in the earliest

26

filed case” this motion, Mrs. Wong does so here.

27

///

28

///
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
C 11-01957 JCS – PAGE 1

Case3:11-cv-01957-JCS Document14 Filed02/03/12 Page2 of 4

1
2

II.
A.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Any Party, Especially the Refiling Party, is Required to File an Administrative Motion to
Consider Whether Cases Should be Related

3
4

“If any civil action or claim of a civil action is dismissed and is subsequently refiled, the

5

refiling party must file a Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related pursuant to Civil L.R.

6

3-12.” (Civil L.R. 3-3(c).) “An action is related to another when: [¶] (1) The actions concern

7

substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and [¶] (2) It appears likely that there

8

will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are

9

conducted before different Judges.” (Id., at 3-12(a).)

10

Additionally, “[w]henever a party knows or learns that an action, filed in or removed to this

11

district is (or the party believes that the action may be) related to an action which is or was pending in

12

this District as defined in Civil L.R. 3-12(a), the party must promptly file in the earliest filed case an

13

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11.”

14

(Civil L.R. 3-12(b).)

15

“Upon a determination by a Judge that an action or claim pending before him or her is covered

16

by this Local Rule, that Judge may transfer the refiled action to the Judge originally assigned to the

17

action which had been dismissed.” (Civil L.R. 3-3(c).) Notably, “[a]ny party who files an action in

18

multiple divisions or dismisses an action and subsequently refiles it for the purpose of obtaining an

19

assignment in contravention of Civil L.R. 3-3(b) shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.” (Id.)

20

B.

Action Numbers C 11-01957, C 11-05630, and C 12-00469 All Relate to Hard Drive’s
Copyright Infringement Claims and Mrs. Wong’s Denials of Such Infringement

21
22

On April 22, 2011, Hard Drive filed an action titled Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-48,

23

action number C 11-01957. (Exhibit A to Yuen Decl.) This action was assigned to the Honorable

24

Joseph C. Spero based upon Hard Drive’s consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. (Docket 5.)

25

In this action, Hard Drive identified IP address 76.126.48.155 as a Doe Defendant who allegedly

26

infringed its purported copyright. (Exhibit A at 7:23-8:2 (¶¶ 25-26) & Exhibit A to Yuen Decl.) On

27

September 27, 2011, Hard Drive dismissed action number C 11-01957 without prejudice. (Docket 13.)

28

///
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
C 11-01957 JCS – PAGE 2

Case3:11-cv-01957-JCS Document14 Filed02/03/12 Page3 of 4

1

On November 21, 2011, Hard Drive filed an action titled Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John

2

Doe, action number C 11-05630, for copyright infringement which was subsequently reassigned to the

3

Honorable Richard Seeborg on November 30, 2011. (Exhibit B at 1:26-27 (¶ 2) to Yuen Decl.) In this

4

action, Hard Drive judicially admits that it had filed the previous action of C 11-01957 against a Doe

5

defendant with IP address 76.126.48.155. (Exhibit B at 1:19-20 (¶ 1) to Yuen Decl.) Hard Drive

6

further judicially admits that the account holder associated with IP address 76.126.48.155 is Liuxia

7

Wong. (Id., at 1:22-23 (¶ 1) to Yuen Decl.)

8

On January 23, 2012, Liuxia Wong filed an action titled Liuxia Wong v. Hard Drive

9

Productions, Inc. and Does 1-50, action number C 12-00469, and subsequently filed her first amended

10

complaint on January 31, 2012 basically seeking declaratory relief of non-infringement of Hard

11

Drive’s purported copyright which was assigned to the Honorable Howard R. Lloyd. (Exhibit C at

12

11:24-13:4 (¶¶ 93-105) to Yuen Decl.) Mrs. Wong consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.

13

(Docket 5.)

14

Hard Drive, as the refiling party in action number C 11-05630, failed to comply with the local

15

rules by filing an administrative motion to consider whether cases should be related. As such,

16

Mrs. Wong now promptly brings this motion per Civil L.R. 3-12.

17

All of these cases are related to Hard Drive’s allegations that Liuxia Wong is liable for

18

copyright infringement due to her being the account holder associated with IP address 76.126.48.155,

19

and Mrs. Wong’s claims that she is not liable to Hard Drive. (Exhibits A, B & C to Yuen Decl.) As

20

such, it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense, or

21

conflicting results if Hard Drive’s action number C 11-05630 and Mrs. Wong’s action number C 12-

22

00469 are conducted before different judges. Since Judge Spero was the first judge assigned to these

23

three related cases, Mrs. Wong respectfully requests the court to order these cases related and assigned

24

to Judge Spero.

25

III.

CONCLUSION

26

Based on all the information stated herein and in her supporting papers, Mrs. Wong respectfully

27

requests the court to order action numbers C 11-01957 JCS, C 11-05630 RS, and C 11-05630 HRL

28

related, and assigned to Judge Spero.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
C 11-01957 JCS – PAGE 3

Case3:11-cv-01957-JCS Document14 Filed02/03/12 Page4 of 4

1

DATED: February 3, 2012
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY

2
/s/ Steven W. Yuen
3
By

SWY.20358380.doc

13

seph
Judge Jo

ER

o
C. Sper

H

12

RT

11

NO

10

D
DENIE

LI

9

Dated: February 9, 2012

A

8

UNIT
ED

7

ICT
C

RT
U
O

S

6

S
TE
TA

R NIA

5

Steven W. Yuen
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LIUXIAR
DIST WONG

FO

4

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
C 11-01957 JCS – PAGE 4