Signatours Corporation v. Phyllis Hartford dba Mountain View Properties
Filing
35
ORDER granting Defendants All Seasons Vacation Rentals and Kevin Kellys 33 Motion to Dismiss; granting Defendant Phyllis Hartfords 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting Defendants Accurate Development, Inc.s and Thomas Wolters 25 Motion to dismiss; granting Defendant Scott Fishers 26 Motion to dismiss; if pltf's wishes to amend its complaint it is due within 14 days by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
SIGNATOURS CORPORATION,
Consolidated Case No. C14-1581RSM
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
v.
PHYLLIS HARTFORD d/b/a MOUNTAIN
VIEW PROPERTIES.,a Delaware, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
13
Defendants.
14
15
I.
INTRODUCTION
16
17
THIS CONSOLIDATED MATTER comes before the Court on the following motions
18
to dismiss, all of which raise identical bases for dismissal: 1) Defendant Phyllis Hartford’s
19
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #18); Defendants Accurate Development, Inc.’s and Thomas Wolter’s
20
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #25); Defendant Scott Fisher’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #26); and
21
Defendants All Seasons Vacation Rentals’ and Kevin Kelly’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #33)
22
23
(hereinafter collectively “Defendants”). Defendants argue that this matter should be dismissed
24
against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, or, in the
25
alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or for a more definitive statement
26
under Rule 12(e). Id. Specifically, Defendants assert that the copyright registration attached to
27
the Complaints in this matter shows that Plaintiff Signatours Corporation (“Signatours”) lacks
28
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
standing because it does not own the copyright in the photographs whose alleged infringement
2
is the basis of the Complaint; and the Complaint further fails to allege basic facts regarding
3
Signatours’ alleged ownership of the copyrights, or regarding the acts that supposedly
4
constitute infringement and the identity of the photos whose copyrights are alleged to have
5
been infringed, what acts are supposed to have constituted the infringement, and when those
6
7
acts are supposed to have occurred. Id. Signatours opposes the motions, arguing that it has
8
unambiguously pled ownership of the copyright in question such that is has standing to pursue
9
these cases, and has otherwise met the appropriate pleading standards. Dkt. #20.1 For the
10
reasons set forth herein, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff and GRANTS Defendants’ motions
11
to dismiss.
12
II.
13
This matter stems from alleged copyright violations of Plaintiff’s photographs by the
14
15
BACKGROUND
various consolidated Defendants.
Plaintiff authors and is the owner of non-stock, high-
16
dynamic range (HDR), commercial photographs of inns, resorts and vacation rental properties.
17
18
Dkt. #1 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff asserts that these photographs are typically licensed to management
19
companies for use in marketing and rental of the properties. Id. Signatours alleges that it is the
20
copyright owner of photographs of the vacation rental properties referred to as the “Crystal
21
River Ranch Property,” “Guy Peak Lodge” and/or “Chamonix Place,” located at Snoqualmie
22
Pass, Washington, and “Eagle Thunder Lodge Property” or “Snoqualmie Summit.” Dkt. #1 at
23
24
¶ ¶ 5-6 in Case Nos. C14-1581RSM, C14-1600RSM, C14-5834RSM, and C15-0282RSM.
25
26
1
27
28
Because the motions and responses were filed separately in each individual case, on separate
dockets prior to consolidation, but are nearly identical in form and argument, the Court will
refer to the singular briefs filed in Case No. C14-1581RSM for ease of reference, with the
understanding that the same discussion applies to all Defendants in this Order.
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have violated its copyright in the subject
2
photographs by copying and publishing them in Defendants’ rental marketing materials. Dkt.
3
#1 at ¶ 6. The Defendants subject to this Order are alleged to have violated the same asserted
4
Signatours copyright, VAu001055316, which became effective on January 10, 2011. See Dkt.
5
#1 at ¶ ¶ 5-6 in Case Nos. C14-1581RSM, C14-1600RSM, C14-5834RSM, and C156
7
0282RSM. A single claim of alleged copyright infringement has been alleged against each of
8
the Defendants. Id. Defendants now move to dismiss the claims in their entirety.
9
III.
10
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Defendants have moved to dismiss on alternative bases. The Court
11
first addresses Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring its claims because it
12
13
fails to adequately plead ownership of the copyright allegedly infringed, and, in fact, the
14
copyright attached to the Complaint actually reveals a different owner – a business entity called
15
“Sunspots.” See Dkt. #18 at 2
16
A. Standing Under the Copyright Act
17
18
Under the Copyright Act,
The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is
entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for
any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the
owner of it.
19
20
21
22
17 U.S.C. § 501. In order to “be entitled to sue for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must
23
be the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.” Silvers v. Sony
24
Pictures Ent’'t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
25
The Copyright Act provides an exhaustive list of six “exclusive rights” held by
26
27
copyright owners:
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
1
2
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
3
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
4
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
5
6
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly;
7
8
9
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display
the copyrighted work publicly; and
10
11
12
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
13
14
17 U.S.C. § 106; see also Silvers, 402 F.3d at 886-87 (recognizing that this list is exhaustive).
15
The various exclusive rights provided for under this section may be transferred and owned
16
separately. Id. § 201(d). Since the right to bring suit for an accrued claim is not one of the
17
18
“exclusive rights” identified in § 106, the Ninth Circuit has held that a person may not bring
19
suit for copyright infringement where they own only the “bare right to sue,” but do not own any
20
of the exclusive rights provided for in § 106. Silvers, 402 F.3d at 885-86.
21
B. Legal Standard for Motions Under Rule 12(b)(1)
22
A motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(1) may be granted where the court lacks
23
24
subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Thus, Rule 12(b)(1) is the
25
appropriate vehicle for dismissing a claim where the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the
26
Copyright Act. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003).
27
Once the moving party has asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the burden is on the
28
ORDER
PAGE - 4
1
party asserting jurisdiction; the court will presume that there is no jurisdiction until proved
2
otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128
3
L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). “A jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be made either on
4
the face of the pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1139.
5
C. Copyright Registration VAu001055316
6
7
In this case, Defendants are alleged to have infringed Copyright Registration
8
VAu001055316. As Defendants note in their motion, the Copyright Registration Certificate
9
reflects the copyright claimant as “Sunspots.” Dkt. #1, Ex. A. The certificate itself does not
10
mention Signatours. See id. Plaintiff has provided no other proof of ownership, other than its
11
bare allegation that it is the legal or beneficial owner of the copyright. Dkt. #20 at 1-3. This is
12
13
not enough. Because Plaintiff has attached a registration certificate that reflects a different
14
entity as the copyright claimant, but has failed to provide any evidence, by affidavit or
15
otherwise, that it is somehow connected with that claimant or that it became the legal or
16
beneficial owner of the copyright, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims. As
17
18
19
a result, the Court need not address Defendants’ alternative arguments.
D. Leave to Amend
20
Ordinarily, leave to amend a complaint should be freely given following an order of
21
dismissal, “unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured
22
by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); see also DeSoto v.
23
24
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A district court does not err in
25
denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” (citing Reddy v. Litton Indus.,
26
Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990)).
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 5
Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to amend its
1
2
Complaint, it is permitted to file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the
date of this Order.
3
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Plaintiff’s Response thereto
5
and Defendants’ Reply in support thereof, along with the remainder of the record, the Court
6
7
hereby ORDERS:
8
1. Defendant Phyllis Hartford’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #18) is GRANTED.
9
2. Defendants Accurate Development, Inc.’s and Thomas Wolter’s Motion to Dismiss
10
(Dkt. #25) is GRANTED.
11
3. Defendant Scott Fisher’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #26) is GRANTED.
12
13
4. Defendants All Seasons Vacation Rentals’ and Kevin Kelly’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. #33) is GRANTED.
14
15
5. Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED in their entirety.
16
However, if Plaintiff wishes to amend its Complaint, it is permitted to file a First
17
Amended Complaint no later than fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
18
19
DATED this 10 day of March, 2015.
20
A
21
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?