Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED A. CLARK, PH.D., No. CIV.S-05-2187 GEB DAD PS

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

AMAZON.COM, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on March 31, 2006, for a

further status (pretrial scheduling) conference and a hearing on the

motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by defendants Amazon.com, Amazon.fr,

Amazon.co.uk and Waldenbooks.com. Plaintiff Fred A. Clark,

proceeding pro se, appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The named plaintiffs are “Fred A. Clark, Ph.D.” and “Clarco 1

Enterprises.” Dr. Clark has indicated that Clarco Enterprises is a

sole proprietorship and that he and Clarco Enterprises are one and

the same. There appears to be no rule prohibiting Clarco Enterprises

from being represented by Dr. Clark, who is a non-lawyer and its sole

shareholder. Cf. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d

696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)(“Although a non-attorney may appear in

propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. 

He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than

himself.”)(citations omitted).

2

plaintiff Clarco Enterprises. Vanessa Power appeared on behalf of 1

the moving defendants. There was no appearance on behalf of the

other defendants identified in the caption of plaintiffs’ complaint,

Abebooks.com and Half.com. 

MOTION TO DISMISS

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the

complaint. See Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th

Cir. 2003), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1050 (2005); North Star Int’l v.

Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal

of the complaint or of any claim within it “can be based on the lack

of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts

alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Navarro v.

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001); Robertson v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the

complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The writing is titled “Teenage Street Gangs: Differences, 2

Membership & Intervention,” which apparently is a book plaintiffs

self-published in limited numbers. At the hearing on the pending

motion Dr. Clark explained that some official copies of the books

were given away to friends, family, colleagues and the like at no

charge and others were sold directly to readers by Clarco

Enterprises.

3

to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation

to construe the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,

1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)(en banc). However, the court’s liberal

interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential

elements of a claim that are not pled. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint is very brief. In relevant

part, it alleges that “Defendants, through their registered corporate

domain internet web sites have been willfully selling without the

Plaintiff’s permission” a writing which is “copyrighted by the 2

Plaintiffs.” The complaint goes on to allege that defendants have

violated 17 U.S.C. § 501, which generally concerns copyright

infringement, and prays for statutory damages. However, even

liberally construing the complaint, and after hearing from the

parties, the court is unable to discern the precise conduct of which

plaintiffs complain. More specifically, plaintiffs have failed to

allege specific facts supporting the elements of a cause of action

for direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Although Dr. Clark explained at the hearing on this motion 3

what he was attempting to allege in his complaint, the court does not

wish this matter to proceed based upon the court’s interpretation of

the complaint as informed by Dr. Clark’s comments. Were the court to

do so, there is the risk that the brief and vague allegations of the

complaint may be misinterpreted thereby limiting the scope of the

intended action. The safer course, for both the court and the

parties is to dismiss with leave to amend so that the allegations of

plaintiffs’ amended complaint can speak for themselves.

4

infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, or any other cause of

action. See Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987)

(setting forth elements of copyright infringement); A & M Records,

Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1019-24 (9th Cir. 2001)

(discussing contributory and vicarious copyright infringement); see

also Hendrickson v. Amazon.com, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 914 (C.D. Cal.

2003)(granting summary judgment in Amazon’s favor on plaintiff’s

claims for both direct and vicarious infringement).

The court recognizes that copyright claims need not be pled

with particularity. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 167

F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2001). However, even under the

liberal system of notice pleading, defendants are entitled to fair

notice of the allegations against them. See Leatherman v. Tarrant

County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163,

168 (1993) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

Because the complaint does not give defendants fair notice of what

plaintiffs’ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, dismissal

is required.3

Nonetheless, the court will grant plaintiffs leave to file

an amended complaint. If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint,

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

they must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear and

concise factual allegations describing the events which underlie

plaintiffs’ claim(s). In particular, plaintiffs should include

allegations clarifying whether their claim is that certain defendants

themselves offered plaintiffs’ book for sale or whether defendants

were simply internet service providers which provided the venue for

independent third-party sellers to actually sell the books in

question. It also is suggested that plaintiffs clarify whether their

claim is that the writings sold were infringing copies of the book

(e.g., photocopied versions or some other unauthorized reproductions

of the book) or simply used copies of the original books which

plaintiffs self-published and distributed. 

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiffs’ amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the

initial complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. Any amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary

factual allegations will likely be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Plaintiffs are forewarned that the failure to file an

amended complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

As noted above, there was no appearance at the status

conference on behalf of Half.com. However, plaintiffs have requested

that Half.com be dismissed from this action. That request will be

granted.

There also was no appearance on behalf of Abebooks.com. 

Plaintiffs claim to have effectuated service of process upon

Abebooks.com by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint on an

individual named Thomas C. Bayer. Mr. Bayer is not a defendant in

this action and is not mentioned in the allegations of the complaint. 

Rather, plaintiffs appear to be under the impression that Mr. Bayer

is the owner of Abebooks.com and therefore an appropriate person to

serve on behalf of that business entity. However, correspondence to

the court directly from Mr. Bayer, which is on file, sufficiently

establishes that Mr. Bayer is an independent bookseller who works out

of his home in Hillsdale, Michigan. (Doc. nos. 6 & 21.) Mr. Bayer

does not appear to be the owner of or an officer of Abebooks.com,

which is a private company based in Victoria, British Columbia,

Canada and one of the world’s largest online marketplaces for books. 

Therefore, the service of process upon Mr. Bayer on behalf of

Abebooks.com will be quashed. However, in light of the

circumstances, and because plaintiffs are being granted the 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The court “may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as 4

to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are

in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims

against such defendants are integrally related.” Silverton v. Dep’t

of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Omar v.

Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Such a

dismissal may be made without notice where the plaintiff cannot

possible win relief.”). The court’s authority in this regard

includes sua sponte dismissal as to both defendants who have not been

served and those who have not yet answered or appeared. See Ricotta

v. State of California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 978 (S.D. Cal. 1998); Bach

v. Mason, 190 F.R.D. 567, 571 & n.7 (D. Idaho 1999)(Garcia, J.). 

Here, all of the named defendants are similarly situated to the

moving defendants with respect to plaintiffs’ complaint. 

Accordingly, dismissal as to all named defendants is appropriate at

this time.

7

opportunity to file an amended complaint, plaintiffs will be given an

additional opportunity to serve process on Abebooks.com.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The pending motion to dismiss is granted as to all

defendants;4

2. Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed;

3. Plaintiffs are granted twenty (20) days from the date

of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

Practice; the amended complaint, if any, must bear the docket number

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. 

Plaintiffs must file an original and two copies of the amended

complaint;

4. Within twenty (20) days from the filing of their

amended complaint, plaintiffs shall complete service of process by

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

delivering a proper summons and copy of the amended complaint upon

Abebooks.com in a manner that comports with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4. Plaintiffs also shall provide Abebooks.com with a copy

of this order;

5. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ voluntary request, defendant

Half.com is dismissed from this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(i);

6. A further status (pretrial scheduling) conference is

SET for June 30, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. Any party may arrange

telephonic appearance by contacting Pete Buzo at (916) 930-4128; and

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of

this order on Thomas C. Bayer, 85 Reading Avenue, Hillsdale, Michigan

49242-1941. 

DATED: April 19, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\clark2187.oah.033106

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/20/06 Page 8 of 8