Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05242/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 Defendant Christina Sanchez, not a party to the instant motion, was nonetheless

represented at the hearing by her counsel, Stephen L. Dahm.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND IMAGE INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-5242 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL 

IN PART AND DENYING DISMISSAL

RONSIN PHOTOCOPY, INC., et al., IN PART

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for improper venue and for failure

to state a claim came on for hearing before this court on December 19, 2007. Plaintiff,

Second Image, Inc. (“plaintiff”), appeared through its counsel, Karl S. Kronenberger. 

Defendant Ronsin Photocopy Inc. (“defendant”), appeared through its counsel, Aaron G.

Capps.1

 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion to

dismiss in part and GRANTS the motion in part, for the reasons stated at the hearing, and

summarized as follows. 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for improper venue is

DENIED, as the evidence submitted by plaintiff demonstrates that venue is proper in the

Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, based on either (a) defendant’s residence

in the Northern District, or (b) the fact that a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on

which plaintiff’s claim is premised took place within the Northern District. See, e.g., Murphy

v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004)(motion to dismiss or

Case 4:07-cv-05242-PJH Document 25 Filed 12/21/07 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

transfer should be denied if plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of proper venue).

2. Similarly, defendant’s motion to transfer this case to an alternative venue in

the interests of justice or for the convenience of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a), is also DENIED. While discovery relating to the alleged electronic breach is likely

to be electronic, and easily transportable, the relevant third party witnesses identified thus

far reside in Northern California. Furthermore, there are no outstanding issues with respect

to judicial economy that warrant transfer, nor are there any issues regarding access to

proof that would tip the scales in favor of transferring the case. Accordingly, there is no

compelling reason to disturb plaintiff’s choice of forum. See, e.g., Securities Investor

Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985)(a plaintiff’s choice of forum

is accorded substantial weight in proceedings under § 1404(a), and courts generally do not

order transfers unless the “convenience” and “justice” factors strongly favor venue

elsewhere.).

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of

the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to

adequately establish that plaintiff’s computer was “protected” within the meaning of the

CFAA, or that plaintiff incurred a “loss” of at least $5000 as a result of defendants’ actions. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B)(CFAA states that a computer must be “used in interstate or

foreign commerce or communication...”); see also id. at. § 1030(e)(11)(“loss” defined under

the CFAA as “any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an

offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or

information to its condition prior to the offense....”). Plaintiff is granted leave to amend,

however, in order to cure any deficiencies. 

4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third claim for relief under section

43(a) of the Lanham Act is also GRANTED. While plaintiff has established the majority of

elements required to state a prima facie case under the Act, plaintiff has failed to allege

that defendant’s goods or services were involved in interstate commerce. See, e.g., Rice

Case 4:07-cv-05242-PJH Document 25 Filed 12/21/07 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

v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003)(false advertising plaintiff must

allege: (1) false statements of fact made by defendant in advertisements about its own or

another’s product; (2) which advertisements actually deceived or have the tendency to

deceive a substantial segment of their audience; (3) which deception is material, in that it is

likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) that defendant caused its falsely advertised

goods to enter interstate commerce; and (5) plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a

result of the foregoing). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Lanham Act is

dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, however, in order to state a renewed claim. 

5. Assuming that plaintiff properly amends its complaint, the court would have

subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint in view of the federal questions

presented therein. Accordingly, the court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss the

complaint on grounds that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. 

Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint no later than January 21, 2008. 

Defendants shall file a response to the amended complaint no later than February 11,

2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05242-PJH Document 25 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 3