Righthaven LLC v. DiBiase

Filing 72

ORDER Granting 47 Motion to Dismiss. Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 6/22/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
11
12
13
14
15

RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited-liability )
company,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS A. DIBIASE, an individual,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01343-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion to Dismiss–#47)

16
Before the Court is Defendant Thomas A. DiBiase’s Motion to Dismiss (#47, filed

17
18

May 4, 2011) based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has also considered

19

Plaintiff Righthaven LLC’s Opposition (#53, filed May 18, 2011), and DiBiase’s Reply (#64, filed

20

June 3, 2011).

21
22

BACKGROUND
DiBiase maintains a website that publishes information regarding the prosecution of

23

so-called “no-body” murder cases—a homicide prosecution where the alleged victim is missing

24

and presumed dead, but no body is found. On August 9, 2010, Righthaven filed suit against

25

DiBiase for copyright infringement alleging that DiBiase displayed a Las Vegas Review Journal

26

article concerning a “no-body” murder case (the “Work”) on his website. Righthaven claims to be

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

the copyright owner of that article. DiBiase answered the complaint on October 29, 2011, and

2

brought a declaratory judgment counterclaim against Righthaven asking the Court to declare that

3

he did not infringe on Righthaven’s alleged copyright.

4

In a separate case before this Court, Stephens Media, the original owner of the

5

Work, disclosed the Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”) entered into between Stephens Media

6

and Righthaven which governs future assignments from Stephens Media to Righthaven and the

7

relationship between them.1 Stephens Media and Righthaven entered into the SAA in January

8

2010, prior to Stephens Media assigning the work to Righthaven. For the reasons discussed

9

below, the Court grants DiBiase’s motion and dismisses Righthaven’s complaint for lack of

10

standing, however, the Court also dismisses DiBiase’s counterclaim for lack of standing.

11

DISCUSSION

12

Recently this Court determined that Righthaven lacked standing to pursue copyright

13

infringement claims based on assignments made under the SAA because the SAA prevents

14

subsequent assignments from transferring “the exclusive rights necessary to maintain standing in a

15

copyright infringement action. Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-

16

GWF, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2011 WL 2378186 at *6 (D. Nev. June 14, 2011); see also Righthaven v.

17

Hoehn, 2:10-cv-00050-PMP-RJJ, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2011 WL 2441020 at *6 (D. Nev. June 20,

18

2011). The standing issues in this case are the same as those in Democratic Underground and

19

Hoehn. Because the issues are the same, the same analysis applies and the Court directs readers to

20

the reasoning in those cases on the issue of standing. As the Court did in both of those cases, the

21

Court dismisses Righthaven for lack of standing.

22

Because the Court has held that Righthaven does not have standing to assert a

23

copyright infringement claim against DiBiase, the Court must consider whether DiBiase has

24
1

25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases and directs the reader to these cases for further
information regarding the background of the SAA: Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, 2:10-cv-01356RLH-GW F, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2011 W L 2378186 (D. Nev. June 14, 2011) and Righthaven v. Hoehn, 2:10-cv00050-PMP-RJJ, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2011 W L 2441020 (D. Nev. June 20, 2011).

2

1

standing to assert a declaratory judgment claim seeking a declaration of non-infringement against

2

Righthaven. As Righthaven does not hold the copyright to the Work, DiBiase lacks standing to

3

assert his claim against Righthaven just as Righthaven lacks standing to assert its purported claim.

4

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses DiBiase’s claim for lack of standing.

5

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DiBiase’s Motion to Dismiss (#47) is GRANTED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DiBiase’s counterclaim is DISMISSED. As no

9
10

claims remain pending, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: June 22, 2011.

11
12

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

3