QOTD Film Investment Ltd. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 137

ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's 132 Motion to Stay and the underlying motion for summary judgement for lack of standing is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to renote the motions in limine (Dkt. # 129 ) on the Court's calendar for Friday, June 29, 2018. Plaintiff's response is due the Wednesday before the note date. Replies will be accepted. An amended case management order will be issued. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

QOTD FILM INVESTMENT, LTD,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
MARY STARR, et al.,

12

Case No. C16-0371RSL
ORDER

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Continued Stay of

15

Case Pending Reinstatement.” Dkt. # 132. In February 2018, defendant Brian Wilson and

16

counterclaimant Judy Rushing moved for summary judgment on the ground that QOTD

17

Film Investment, Ltd., lacked standing to pursue a claim of copyright infringement

18

because it had been administratively dissolved. Under the United Kingdom Companies

19

Act, section 1012(1), all of plaintiff’s property and rights, including the copyright at issue

20

in this litigation, were deemed ownerless goods as of that date and were automatically

21

transferred to the Crown. Wilson and Rushing argued, and plaintiff did not dispute, that

22

plaintiff cannot succeed on its infringement claim if it does not own the copyright.

23

Plaintiff requested an opportunity to reinstate itself, at which point the company would be

24

“deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not been dissolved or struck off the

25

register.” U.K. Companies Act § 1032(1).

26

The case was stayed for thirty days. Plaintiff failed to obtain reinstatement to the
ORDER - 1

1

register within those thirty days, and the United Kingdom Companies House records

2

suggest that plaintiff was not diligent in pursuing timely reinstatement. Nevertheless,

3

counsel has now provided evidence that QOTD Film Investment, Ltd., was reinstated as

4

an active company on May 9, 2018. Plaintiff is now deemed to have been in existence as

5

if it had not been dissolved, with full ownership in the copyright, and may pursue its

6

claims.

7
8

For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion to continue the stay is DENIED as

9

moot and the underlying motion for summary judgement for lack of standing is DENIED.

10

The Clerk of Court is directed to renote the motions in limine (Dkt. # 129) on the Court’s

11

calendar for Friday, June 29, 2018. Plaintiff’s response is due the Wednesday before the

12

note date. Replies will be accepted. An amended case management order will be issued.

13
14

Dated this 19th day of June, 2018.

15

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2