Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02279/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02279-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND E. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID COLEMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-2279 EMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 8)

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral

argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss but gives Plaintiff

leave to amend. 

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject

matter jurisdiction because he did not allege in his complaint that the copyright at issue was

registered. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the

Copyright Act. 

In response to the first argument, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of a certificate of

registration. That certificate, however, reflects that the copyright is for a photograph, which is not

entirely consistent with the complaint which suggests that the copyright is for a wine label design. 

See Compl. ¶ 38. In response to the second argument, Plaintiff correctly notes that “[c]opyright

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, a claim for copyright infringement must include at the

very least an allegation of ownership of the copyright at issue, see, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336

Case 3:07-cv-02279-EMC Document 28 Filed 10/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), and Plaintiff failed to point to any specific allegation in the complaint

that he owns the copyright at issue.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss but shall give Plaintiff leave to

amend. The amended complaint should contain allegations that Plaintiff owns the copyright at issue

and further that Plaintiff has registered the copyright. See Perfect 10, 167 F. Supp. 2d at 1120

(“[C]omplaints simply alleging present ownership by plaintiff, registration in compliance with the

applicable statute and infringement by defendant have been held sufficient under the rules.”). The

complaint shall describe with specificity the precise copyrighted works at issue. The amended

complaint shall be filed by October 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02279-EMC Document 28 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2