Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD GLASSEY,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6128 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

D-LINK CORPORATION; and DOES

1-10,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint came on for hearing before this court

on December 13, 2006. Plaintiff, Todd Glassey (“Glassey”), appeared pro se. Defendant,

D-Link Corporation (“D-Link”), appeared through its counsel, Duncan Palmatier. Having

read all submitted papers and carefully considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion

to dismiss the complaint, for the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized as follows.

1. Preliminarily, plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Given plaintiff’s failure to so file, the court would normally be inclined

to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss, on the basis that plaintiff has

effectively conceded defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff, however, persuaded

the court at the hearing on the instant motion that his failure to timely file an

opposition was due to electronic filing errors, not to neglect on his part. 

2. Notwithstanding the above, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to

properly serve the complaint on the proper defendant, and for failure to state

any legal claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s first cause of

action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029-1030 fails because it is based on a

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

criminal statute for which plaintiff lacks standing to state a civil claim. 

Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action alleging civil violations of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and fraud, fail

because plaintiff does not allege either with specificity, as required by law. 

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, properly interpreted as a civil claim under

section 1 of the Sherman Act, fails for lack of any allegation establishing the

requisite conspiratorial activity. Finally, plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for

copyright infringement fails, as plaintiff has not plead the requisite element of

copyright registration. 

3. Although the court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss by reason of the legal

deficiencies noted above, the court also GRANTS plaintiff leave to file a newly

amended complaint in order to cure those deficiencies. Plaintiff must file his

amended complaint no later than Friday, January 12, 2007. Moreover, the

complaint must be served on the proper defendant, in accordance with the

federal and local rules applicable to the service of summons and complaint. 

4. Defendant shall file and serve an answer to, or in the alternative, a motion to

dismiss, any newly filed amended complaint, no later than February 1, 2007. 

If defendant chooses to file an answer an lieu of a motion to dismiss, the

parties shall correspondingly file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth

an agreed upon date for a further case management conference in the instant

action. 

5. The court further orders that no discovery in the instant action is to take place

until the matters raised herein have been resolved. To that end, and per the

separate court order dated December 14, 2006, the subpoena served by

plaintiff upon D-link Systems, a separately named company located in

Southern California, is hereby QUASHED. 

6. In view of the above, plaintiff’s December 19, 2006 memorandum “in

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

3

opposition to defendant’s motions to (1) quash the subpoena’s issuance and

to (2) dismiss this matter in full” is deemed MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 3