Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00853/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00853-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 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

1

 The parties use the traditional Latin term, “lis pendens.” In conformance with the

California statute, the Court will use “notice of pending action,” or just “notice.”

2

 Defendants did not file a formal motion, but merely requested the relief in conjunction with

their opposition to Helppi’s request. The Court concludes that in this instance it is preferable to

resolve the issues without requiring a formal motion or further briefing.

1

*E-FILED 5/23/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DOUGLAS W. NILS HELPPI, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTOPHER BOWMAN, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-0853

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF

NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION;

GRANTING MOTION TO

EXPUNGE NOTICE OF

PENDING ACTION

Plaintiff Douglas Nils Helppi has filed a request under California Code of Civil Procedure

section 405.21 for this Court to approve a notice of pending action to be recorded against the real

property involved in this matter.1

 Defendants oppose the request, and move for an order expunging

a notice that they represent was previously recorded despite the fact that no prior court approval had

been obtained.2

Under California Civil Code section 405.2, a notice is proper only in “an action in which a

real property claim is alleged.” Section 405.4 defines a “real property claim” as one which would, if

Case 5:07-cv-00853-RS Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 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

3

 Helppi’s proposed notice also fails to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure

section 405.20, which requires the notice to “contain the names of all parties to the action.”

(Emphasis added.)

2

meritorious, affect “title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property.” Here, Helppi has

alleged a claim for copyright infringement and related claims arising from what he contends was

unauthorized copying and use of his architectural drawings to construct a residence. Even assuming

Helppi prevails on those claims, it appears his remedies would be limited to damages and possibly to

injunctive relief against further copying or use of his drawings. It does appear that in some

circumstances further unauthorized construction of a structure from copyrighted plans may be

enjoined. See, e.g. Value Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P., 800 F.Supp. 1228 (D. N.J.

1992). Were such an injunction entered, it obviously could effect enjoyment of the real property at

issue, depending on the state of construction at the time, but it would not appear to affect title to, or

the right to possession of that property. Theoretically, a right to enjoin construction might also give

rise to a right to require demolition–which arguably would “affect” the right of possession. That

theoretical possibility, however, is too slender a reed on which to premise a notice of pending action,

particularly on the facts of this case, where Helppi has not moved for injunctive relief and where it

appears to be in the pecuniary interests of all parties that the construction be completed.

Accordingly, without prejudice to any later adjudication as to whether the building may be

completed or remain in existence, Helppi’s request is denied because Court approval of a notice of

pending action is not warranted at this juncture.3

 Defendants’ motion to expunge the previously-recorded notice of pending action is granted. 

Without regard to the conclusion expressed above that there presently is no right to record notice of

this action, there is no dispute that California Civil Code section 405.21 prohibits the recording of a

notice of pending action by a party appearing in pro se unless it has been “approved by a judge.” 

Accordingly, even if Helppi were otherwise entitled to record a notice of pending action, any notice

previously recorded in connection with this action must be expunged.

Case 5:07-cv-00853-RS Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 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

C 07-0853

3

In the event the county recorder requires a different form of order to expunge the notice,

defendants shall submit a proposed order, after soliciting Helppi’s approval as to the form of any

such order.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00853-RS Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 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

C 07-0853

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

Nathan C. Benjamin nathan@surfcitylaw.com

AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Douglas W. Helppi

Post Office Box 844

Felton, CA 95018 

Dated: May 23, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

Case 5:07-cv-00853-RS Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 4