Monterey Bay-Charlotte, LLC et al v. Lewis et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendant Plattner shall file an Answer to the Complaint no later than Monday, December 4, 2017. The parties are hereby ORDERED to immediately confer as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as well as the Local Rules and Standing Orders of this Court. The parties Rule 26(f) certification shall be filed no later than Friday, December 2, 2017.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/27/17. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-00058-FDW-DSC
MONTEREY BAY-CHARLOTTE, LLC, and )
ARTHUR RUTENBERG HOMES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MATTHEW LEWIS; ANGELA LEWIS; )
PLATTNER CUSTOM BUILDERS, LLC; )
AND JOHN DOE d/b/a DESIGN BOARD )
PRODUCTIONS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Plattner
Custom Builders, LLC (“Plattner”). (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the
motion (Doc. No. 19), and Defendant Plattner replied (Doc. No. 20). For the reasons that follow,
the motion is DENIED without prejudice to re-raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in a
dispositive motion following discovery.
In short, Plattner argues Plaintiff Monterey Bay-Charlotte, LLC, (“Monterey Bay”), does
not have standing to sue Plattner for copyright infringement because Plaintiff Arthur Rutenberg
Homes, Inc., (“AR Homes”) is the exclusive owner of the two copyrights at issue in this case: a
“map and/or technical drawing” covering plans for a certain residence, as well as a copyright for
the “architectural work” for the residence (collectively, “Registered Works”). Plattner further
argues the Complaint fails to allege Monterey Bay is an assignee or exclusive licensee of the
Registered Works at issue here. In response, Plaintiffs contend Monterey Bay is a franchisee of

1

AR Homes possessing the exclusive right to use the Registered Works and therefore has standing
to bring this infringement suit on behalf of itself and AR homes.
After reviewing the Complaint, pleadings on the motion at bar, and applicable law, and
construing the allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds
the Complaint to sufficiently allege both Plaintiffs have standing to pursue suit in this instance.
This ruling, however, is without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to challenge subject matter
jurisdiction again following discovery should the evidence indicate Monterey Bay is not the legal
or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under the Registered Works. Indeed, the Court notes
discovery may change the existence of subject matter jurisdiction for either Plaintiff in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is
DENIED without prejudice. Defendant Plattner shall file an Answer to the Complaint no later
than Monday, December 4, 2017. The parties are hereby ORDERED to immediately confer as
required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as well as the Local Rules and Standing Orders
of this Court. The parties’ Rule 26(f) certification shall be filed no later than Friday, December 2,
2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 27, 2017

2