Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00242/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0504 Remedies for 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT K. WALLS, individually,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv0242 WQH

(JLB)

ORDER

vs.

UNIRADIO CORP., a California

Corporation,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) filed by the

Defendant. 

I. Procedural Background 

On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff Robert K. Walls filed the Complaint against

Defendant Uniradio Corp. (“Uniradio”), a California Corporation, pursuant to the

Copyright Act, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. (ECF No. 1). On March 7, 2016, Defendant

filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6). (ECF No. 5). On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No.

12). On April 4, 2016, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 13). 

II. Allegations of the Complaint 

Plaintiff seeks “damages and injuncti[ve] relief for copyright infringement under

the Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff alleges that “the

- 1 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 6
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

defendant violated plaintiff’s exclusive rights as copyright owner pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§ 106.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff, a “natural person . . . in Australia,” alleges that

“[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for copyright

infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).” Id. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant is a business entity incorporated in the State of California, Defendant’s principal place of business is in the State of California,

Defendant’s acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in the

State of California, and Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiff in his intellectual property within the State of California. 

Id. at 2. 

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “took the original Image” (the “Image”), that

Plaintiff “has ownership and copyrights to the Image,” and that Plaintiff “has registered

the image with the United States Copyright Office.” Id. at 4. The Complaint alleges

“that Defendant used the Image on its business websites from March 11, 2015 to the

present” and that Plaintiff “did not consent to authorize, permit, allow in any manner

the use of the Images by Defendant.” Id. The Complaint alleges that Defendant

“willfully infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in violation of Title 17 of the

U.S. Code, in that it published, communicated, benefitted through, posted, publicized,

and otherwise held out to the public for commercial benefit, the original and unique

work of the Plaintiff’s . . . and acquired monetary gain and market benefit as a result.” 

Id. at 5. Plaintiff attaches Plaintiff’s original version of the Image (Exhibit 1) and

screen shots of the Image displayed on the website, www.unimexicali.com (Exhibit 2). 

(ECF No. 1-2 at 2-4). Plaintiff also attaches a copy of Plaintiff’s registration of the

Image with the Copyright Office. (ECF No. 1-3 at 1). 

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has the right to “statutory damages in an

amount up to $150,000 for each infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),” the “cost

of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505,” and injunctive

relief “[e]njoining the Defendant from further infringement of all copyrighted works of

the Plaintiff pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §502.” (ECF No. 1 at 5).

- 2 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 6
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

III. Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move

for dismissal on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has subject

matter jurisdiction over an action. Assoc. of Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770,

778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be

expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

(citations omitted). 

“A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual. In a facial attack,

the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on

their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger

disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal

jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

In this case, Plaintiff asserts that, “[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28

U.S.C. § 1338(a).” (ECF No. 1 at 2). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged

facts in the Complaint sufficient to connect this Defendant to the alleged copyright

infringement. This Court considers only Defendant’s facial attack on subject matter

jurisdiction.1

IV. Contentions of the Parties

Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this copyright infringement lawsuit against

the wrong party. Defendant asserts that the Complaint alleges that the Image was used

“in connection with a Mexicali, Mexico, Spanish language news story . . . on a

1

 The Court considers facts alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the exhibits attached to the Complaint. 

- 3 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 6
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

Mexican news website” and that this “website is a service offered by a decades-old

Mexican media corporation with its headquarters and operations in Tijuana, Mexico.”

(ECF No. 5-1 at 2). Defendant contends that the Complaint does not in any way

connect Defendant to the copyright infringement by the Mexican corporation.

Defendant further contends that “[p]laintiff fails to allege sufficient facts establishing.

. . that Defendant had access to, copied, displayed, published or otherwise used the

image.” Id. at 2. Defendant asserts that it is “a completely distinct legal entity from”

the corporation responsible for the alleged copyright infringement. Id.

Plaintiff contends this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under federal question

jurisdiction because a copyright claim is a federal matter.2

 Plaintiff asserts that he

alleged sufficient facts establishing ownership of a valid copyright because the

Complaint contained references to Plaintiff’s Certificate of Copyright Registration

number regarding the Image. Plaintiff asserts that “the court is likely to find that

Unimexicali is that of a Uniradio organization.” (ECF No. 12 at 8). 

V. Ruling of the Court 

Section 1338(a) provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety

protection, copyrights and trademarks.” 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). To state a claim for

copyright infringement, Plaintiffs must allege: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and

(2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc.

v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet

Ventures, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“Copyright claims need

not be pled with particularity.”). The second element requires a plaintiff to allege that

“the infringer had access to plaintiff’s copyrighted work and that the works at issue are

substantially similar in their protected elements.” Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297

F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002). “[W]hen the copyrighted work and the alleged

2

Plaintiff argues aspects of diversity jurisdiction in its memorandum, however, the Complaint does not rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity. 

- 4 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 6
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

infringement are both before the court, capable of examination and comparison,

non-infringement can be determined on a motion to dismiss.” Christianson v. West

Publ’g Co., 149 F.2d 202, 203 (9th Cir. 1945).

In this case, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “took the original Image,” that

Plaintiff “has ownership and copyrights to the Image,” and that Plaintiff “has registered

the image with the United States Copyright Office.” Id. at 4. The Complaint alleges that

“that Defendant used the Image on its business websites from March 11, 2015 to the

present” and 

willfully infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in violation of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, in that it published, communicated, benefitted

through, posted, publicized, and otherwise held out to the public for

commercial benefit, the original and unique work of the Plaintiff’s consent or authority and acquired monetary gain and market benefit as a result.

(ECF No. 1 at 5). The Complaint alleges infringement occurred on www.

unimexicali.com. 

This Court finds that the Complaint fails to allege facts to satisfy the second

element of a copyright claim, that the defendant “copied constituent elements of the

work that were original.” See Feist Publ’ns, Inc., 499 U.S. at 361. There are no facts

in the Complaint to connect this Defendant to the wrongdoings that allegedly occurred

on unimexicali.com. Plaintiff attaches to the Complaint, Exhibit 2, a screen shot of the

alleged copyright infringement taking place on www.unimexicali.com, a Mexican

website, but fails to allege any facts to connect this alleged infringement to Defendant,

Uniradio Corp., a California corporation. Plaintiff fails to meet its burden to establish

that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based upon federal

question. 

///

///

///

///

///

- 5 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 6
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

VI. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is granted.

The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. No later than fourteen (14) days from

the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff may file a motion to file an amended complaint. 

If Plaintiff does not file a motion to file an amended complaint within fourteen days, the

Court will order this case to be closed.

DATED: June 30, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 6 - 16cv0242 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:16-cv-00242-WQH-JLB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 6