Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED A. CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-2187 GEB DAD PS

v.

AMAZON.COM, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

This matter came before the court on April 20, 2007, for hearing on the parties’

cross-motions for summary judgment. Fred A. Clark, proceeding pro se, appeared on his own

behalf and on behalf of his sole proprietorship, Clarco Enterprises. Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.

appeared telephonically for the four defendants. The parties’ motions were taken under

submission.

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments in open court and all written

materials submitted in connection with the parties’ motions, the undersigned recommends that

plaintiffs’ motion be denied and defendants’ motion be granted. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 31, 2005, by filing a complaint

alleging copyright infringement by six defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 8
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

2

selling, without plaintiffs’ permission and in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, copies of plaintiff

Clark’s copyrighted book Teenage Street Gangs: Differences, Membership & Intervention. 

Plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of $150,000 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to defendant Half.com and failed

to effect proper service on defendant Abe Books. Defendants Amazon.com, Amazon.fr,

Amazon.co.uk, and Waldenbooks.com filed a motion to dismiss. By order filed April 20, 2006,

defendants’ motion was granted, and plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

On May 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants

Amazon.com, Amazon.fr, Amazon.co.uk, and Waldenbooks.com filed an answer on May 26,

2006. A pretrial scheduling order was filed on July 6, 2006. Discovery closed on February 16,

2007, and the time for hearing pretrial motions expired when the parties’ pending motions were

heard. The matter is set for final pretrial conference on July 16, 2007, and jury trial on October

10, 2007, before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970);

Owen v. Local No. 169, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir. 1992).

A party moving for summary judgment always bears the initial

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its

motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

“[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a

dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the

‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Celotex Corp., 477

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

U.S. at 323. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. See id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied.” Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see also First Nat’l

Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles,

607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979). The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in

contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a

verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);

T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in

order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with

prejudice. Defendants statement of 36 undisputed facts is supported by two declarations with

exhibits. The Declaration of Adrian Garver, an employee of Amazon.com who works in the

company’s legal department, includes a copy of the company’s participation agreement with

persons who access the Amazon.com website and use the company’s auction and selling

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 8
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

4

services. The Declaration of Vanessa Soriano Power, defendants’ counsel, authenticates the

following exhibits: A and B, plaintiff Clark’s responses to defendants’ first request for

admission, first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents, set one; C and D,

plaintiff Clark’s first set of interrogatories and responses by the Amazon companies and

Waldenbooks.com; E, an Amazon.com report showing three copies of Teenage Street Gangs sold

in 2005 and 2006; F, a document produced by plaintiff Clark in discovery, consisting of a copy of

a screen shot from Amazon.com showing a third-party merchant listing one used copy of

Teenage Street Gangs for sale in 2005; G, a screen shot of Amazon.com’s offering of Teenage

Street Gangs; and H, copies produced by plaintiff Clark in discovery of letters sent to

Amazon.com Customer Service in 2005 and Amazon.com, Inc. in 2006.

Defendants contend that plaintiffs have offered no evidence that defendants

infringed, either directly or vicariously, on plaintiff Clark’s copyright to the book Teenage Street

Gangs. Defendants argue that plaintiff Clark believes that he alone has the right to sell and

distribute copies of his book when in fact he lost exclusive rights to sell and distribute at least

400 copies of his book when he sold them or gave them away to the public. Defendants cite

evidence showing that Amazon.com and third-party sellers on the Amazon.com website have

sold a total of ten lawful copies of plaintiff Clark’s book.

Defendants explain that plaintiffs cannot show direct copyright infringement

because such infringement requires (1) proof of the plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright and

(2) proof that the defendants copied protectible expression or violated some other right of

copyright. Defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright but argue that

there is no evidence that they copied plaintiff’s protected work. Defendants cite the “first sale”

doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), under which the sale of a lawfully made copy of a book

terminates the copyright holder’s authority to interfere with subsequent sales of a lawfully made

copy that was sold or given away by the copyright holder. Thus, subsequent lawful purchasers

cannot be held liable for violating a copyright owner’s exclusive distribution rights. Citing

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

plaintiff’s admission that he sold 187 copies of his book and gave away 234 copies to the public,

defendants argue that plaintiffs have no evidence that the copies of plaintiff Clark’s book sold or

offered for sale by Amazon.com and by third parties on the Amazon.com website were anything

other than lawful copies sold or given away by plaintiff Clark. Defendants argue further that

plaintiffs have no evidence that any third party merchant who offered plaintiff Clark’s book for

sale on the Amazon.com website is liable for direct copyright and therefore plaintiffs cannot

prove vicarious copyright infringement on the part of defendants.

In addition, defendants contend that they are immune from liability under the safe

harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because (1) they are internet service

providers, (2) they have adopted, communicated, and reasonably implemented a policy that

provides for termination of repeat infringers, and (3) they accommodate and do not interfere with

a copyright holder’s ability to identify or protect its copyrighted works. Defendants note that

plaintiffs have not alleged interference with plaintiff Clark’s ability to identify or protect his

copyrighted book, and they assert that plaintiff Clark has no evidence that defendants had actual

knowledge that any material on its network is or was infringing his copyright.

The undersigned finds that defendants’ contentions are supported by their

evidence. Because defendants have met their initial responsibility as moving parties, the burden

shifts to plaintiffs to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. 

Plaintiffs did not file opposition to defendants’ motion. Nor did plaintiffs reproduce and either

admit or deny each of the undisputed facts set forth in defendants’ statement of undisputed facts,

as required by Local Rule 56-260(b).

In plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs do not address

defendants’ undisputed facts or defendants’ legal arguments. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion is not

supported by a statement of undisputed facts, as required by Local Rule 56-260(a). Plaintiffs

argue in conclusory fashion that defendants are liable for “contributory infringement” but cite no

evidence that defendants knew of infringement activity by third parties who sold copies of

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 5 of 8
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

 Plaintiffs’ cross-motion raises a discovery issue that should have been presented to the 1

court prior to the close of discovery on February 16, 2007. Plaintiffs’ belated arguments on the

discovery issue will be disregarded.

6

plaintiff Clark’s book on the Amazon.com website. Plaintiffs argue that they did not enter into a

contract with defendants to sell copies of the book in question, but plaintiffs fail to present any

evidence suggesting that the copies offered for sale were not legally acquired copies, legally sold

pursuant to the “first sale” doctrine.1

Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ cross-motion on the grounds that plaintiffs’

amended complaint does not allege a claim for contributory copyright infringement and that such

a claim would fail in the absence of evidence that defendants had knowledge of infringing

conduct by a third party and induced, caused, or contributed to the infringing conduct.

At oral argument, plaintiff Clark contended that he believed defendants have sold

thousands of copies of his book based upon rating numbers appearing on defendants’ web sites. 

Defendants’ evidence concerning those rating numbers is as follows: Amazon.com allows

purchasers to post ratings for each seller on its website in order to allow customers to assess the

seller; ratings typically relate to the quality of the product, the efficiency of the shipping, and the

overall satisfaction of the purchaser; the number of ratings is not an indicator of how many

copies of the listed item were sold by the seller; plaintiff Clark’s belief that thousands of copies

of his book were sold is erroneously based on the number of ratings received by a seller for

numerous products over a period of time. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., Decl. of Adrian Garver ¶¶

11 & 12.) In this regard, defendants point to a document produced by plaintiff Clark in

discovery. The document shows an Amazon.com website page offering a used copy of plaintiff

Clark’s book for sale by “quality7.” Rating information for this seller merely reflects 91 percent

positive ratings over the past twelve months, during which the seller received 23,083 ratings,

with lifetime ratings of 69,896. (Id., Decl. of Vanessa Soriano Power, Ex. B, at 25.) In short, the

evidence presented by defendants establishes that the rating numbers relied upon by plaintiff in

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

making his claim, in fact do not reflect the number of copies sold of any particular work. On this

record, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that thousands of copies of plaintiff Clark’s book were

sold by defendants and third parties using defendants’ website.

Plaintiff Clark also asserted at oral argument that defendants failed to stop third

party sellers from violating his copyright. However, plaintiff Clark admitted in open court that

the warning letter he sent to Amazon.com prior to the filing of this lawsuit did not identify any

alleged violations by third party sellers and merely accused Amazon.com of infringing on his

copyright by selling his book. (See Decl. of Vanessa Soriano Power, Ex. H.)

At plaintiff Clark’s request, the undersigned granted plaintiffs a week to respond

to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts. Thereafter, plaintiff Clark filed a document with

the court in which he states that he accepts summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of

this action with prejudice. In light of plaintiffs’ failure of proof concerning the alleged copyright

infringements, defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on all claims presented in this

action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ February 26, 2007 motion for summary judgment be granted;

2. Plaintiffs’ March 16, 2007 cross-motion for summary judgment be denied; and

3. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file and serve

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections shall be filed and

served within ten (10) days after the objections are served. The parties are advised that failure to

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

 file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 10, 2007.

DAD:kw

ddad1\orders.prose\clark2187.f&r.msj

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 99 Filed 05/10/07 Page 8 of 8