Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03534/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03534-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

ORDER TENTATIVELY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND SEVENTH CAUSES

OF ACTION IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-05-03534 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/7/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NEIL B. GOLDBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES CAMERON, GALE ANN HURD, et

al.

Defendants.

No. C-05-03534 RMW

ORDER TENTATIVELY GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND SEVENTH

CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re Docket Nos. 44, 46]

I. NATURE OF THE MOTION

In August 2005, plaintiff Neil Goldberg, a resident of Santa Cruz, California, filed suit

against defendants James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd. According to Goldberg, Cameron and Hurd

allegedly misappropriated plaintiff's copyrighted works and used them in all three movies of the

Terminator trilogy. On February 27, 2007, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss

plaintiff's claims as time-barred, permitting Goldberg to amend his complaint to attempt to state a

claim as to the third Terminator movie.

In his second amended complaint, Goldberg seeks (1) an injunction and damages for

copyright infringement; (2) return of all benefits under a theory of conversion; (3) recovery for

Case 5:05-cv-03534-RMW Document 50 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The underlying facts of this action are well-known by the parties, therefore the court will not

repeat them here.

ORDER TENTATIVELY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND SEVENTH CAUSES

OF ACTION IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-05-03534 RMW

MAG 2

breach of implied contract; (4) an injunction and damages under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (5)

an accounting; and (6) declaratory relief. On April 17, 2007, after the parties had stipulated to

extend the time for the defendants to responded to the second amended complaint, Hurd moved to

dismiss Goldberg's second claim for breach of implied contract and seventh claim for negligence

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that these claims are timebarred. Defendant Cameron joined the motion. On May 11, 2007, Hurd submitted a notice of nonopposition that plaintiff had failed to submit an opposition defendants' motion. Plaintiff did not

submit an opposition. However, plaintiff's counsel did appear for the motion after it had been called

and granted on the 9:00 a.m. calendar and noted that defendants had noticed the motion for 10:30

a.m. Therefore, the court hereby gives plaintiff ten days in which to put in writing what he intended

to say at the May 26, 2007 hearing. Absent a showing of good cause for failing to respond to the

motion and a showing that the motion should not be granted for the reasons set forth below, the

court will grant the motion. 

II. ANALYSIS1

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's breach of implied contract claim and negligence claim

as barred by the statute of limitations. They also move to dismiss plaintiff's breach of implied

contract claim on the grounds that plaintiff fails to allege the existence of a contract between

Goldberg and Hurd or Goldberg and Cameron. 

A. Statute of Limitations

The plaintiff's breach of implied contract claim is subject to a two-year limitations period.

Davies v. Krasna, 14 Cal. 3d 502, 516 (1975) (breach of confidence cause of action subject to a

two-year statute of limitations); Rokos v. Peck, 182 Cal. App. 3d 604, 619 (1986) (breach of

confidence and breach of implied contract claims have identical statute of limitations period).

Plaintiff's negligence claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civil

Procedure § 339. Plaintiff's claims accrued when he first suffered "appreciable and actual harm." 

Davies, 14 Cal. 3d at 535. 

Case 5:05-cv-03534-RMW Document 50 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 In the first amended complaint, plaintiff previously alleged that he was unaware of the claim until

within three years of filing the complaint, rather than two years. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 14.

ORDER TENTATIVELY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND SEVENTH CAUSES

OF ACTION IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-05-03534 RMW

MAG 3

Defendants seek judicial notice that Terminator 3 was released on July 2, 2003. "A

judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally

known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable fo accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid.

201(b). Here, there is no dispute that Terminator 3 was released on July 2, 2003, so the court will

take judicial notice of this fact. 

As the court previously held, the date plaintiff's claim originally accrued with regard to

Terminator 3 can be no later than the date on which it was released in 2003. As the movie was

released on July 2, 2003 and plaintiff's complaint was not filed until August 25, 2005, plaintiff's

breach of implied contract claim as to Terminator 3 is untimely. Cf. Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 1001. 

Although plaintiff has amended his complaint to state that he was unaware of the alleged breach of

implied contract until within two years of filing the action,2

 as before, the court sees no reason to

apply any delayed accrual principle. It has already determined that plaintiff's delay in filing this

lawsuit was unreasonable and plaintiff has pleaded no other facts that would alter that determination.

B. Failure to State a Claim

Because the court concludes the plaintiff's second and seventh causes of action are timebarred, it need not reach the merits of defendants' argument that plaintiff fails to state a claim for

breach of implied contract.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, and because plaintiff failed to oppose the motion, the court tentatively

grants defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's claims for breach of implied contract and negligence

are tentatively dismissed in their entirety as time barred without leave to amend. 

DATED: 6/6/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03534-RMW Document 50 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER TENTATIVELY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND SEVENTH CAUSES

OF ACTION IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-05-03534 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Donald Charles Schwartz triallaw@cruzio.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Charles Nathan Shephard cshephard@ggfirm.com 

Bruce Alan Isaacs bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com

David Boren dboren@wymanisaacs.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 6/7/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-03534-RMW Document 50 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 4