Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

27

28

1

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Livingston’s opposition was due no later than

October 6, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEYA MORGAN aka KEYARASH MAZHARI

aka KEYA MAZHARI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2389 MMC

ORDER GRANTING NOVA WINES,

INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

DISMISS; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 53)

Before the Court is defendant Nova Wines, Inc.’s (“Nova”) motion, pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the sole claim asserted against

it in the First Amended Complaint. In the alternative, Nova moves for a more definite

statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e). To date, plaintiff Pete Livingston (“Livingston”) has not

filed opposition to the motion.1 Having considered the papers filed in support of the motion,

the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R.

7-1(b), VACATES the October 27, 2006 hearing, and rules as follows.

In an order filed July 31, 2006, the Court dismissed Livingston’s copyright claim, as

asserted against Nova, because Livingston “failed to identify the specific photograph Nova

purportedly infringed or to identify the specific acts of infringement by Nova[.]” (See Order

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 60 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Granting Nova Wines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, filed July 31, 2006, at 6.) On September 1,

2006, Livingston timely filed an amended complaint, in which Livingston adequately set

forth the asserted acts of infringement. (See First Amended Complaint ¶ 13(a).) As Nova

points out, however, Livingston still fails to identify the specific photograph Nova assertedly

infringed. Consequently, Livingston has not remedied the defects identified by the Court in

its prior dismissal order.

Accordingly, Nova’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Because Nova does

not seek dismissal with prejudice, and because Livingston may be able to successfully

amend his complaint, the Court will afford Livingston an additional opportunity to amend,

and any amended complaint shall be filed no later than November 9, 2006. If Livingston

fails to file an amended complaint by that date, his copyright claim, as asserted against

Nova, will be deemed dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 60 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2