Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01362/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01362-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BORIS KANTEMIROV,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BARRY GOLDINE, d/b/a/ BIGWHEELS.NET,

and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

 /

BARRY GOLDINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BORIS KANTEMIROV, SKIP LIGHTFOOT

and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-01362 HRL

INTERIM ORDER (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH CLAIM FOR

RELIEF; (2) SETTING SCHEDULE FOR

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING; AND (3)

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

[Docket No. 35]

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), defendant and counterclaimant Barry Goldine

(“defendant”) moves to dismiss the fifth through eighth claims for relief asserted in plaintiff Boris

Kantemirov’s Amended Complaint. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition brief; his counsel appeared at

the hearing to state, for the first time, plaintiff’s opposition to the motion. Having considered the
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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have expressly

consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the

undersigned.

2 The Copyright Act, provides, in relevant part, that:

[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United

States work shall be instituted until preregistration or

registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance

with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application,

and fee required for registration have been delivered to the

Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused,

the applicant is entitled to institute an action for infringement if

notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the

Register of Copyrights. . . .

17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

2

papers filed, as well as the arguments presented at the October 4, 2005 hearing, the court issues the

following interim order.1

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s eighth claim for relief for copyright

infringement is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint alleges only that Kantemirov “executed a

Copyright Application” (see Amended Complaint, ¶ 29), and no action apparently has been taken by

the Copyright Office with respect to that application. Plaintiff concedes that under 17 U.S.C. §

411(a),2 the court does not have jurisdiction over this claim at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s eighth

claim for relief is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. No later than October 18, 2005, the parties shall file briefs addressing the effect – if

any – the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal copyright claim for lack of jurisdiction has upon this court’s

ability to adjudicate the parties’ remaining claims in this action, and specifically, whether this action

must now be remanded to the state court. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the matter will be

deemed submitted upon receipt of the parties’ briefs without further oral argument.

3. With respect to plaintiff’s state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and

misappropriation of ideas, plaintiff argues that these claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act

because he is now claiming at least some rights which are different from those protected under that

Act. This court will defer ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss these state law claims pending

resolution of the jurisdictional issue noted above.
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

4. The case management conference currently set for October 25, 2005, 1:30 p.m. is

continued to November 29, 2005, 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2. The parties’ Joint Case

Management Statement shall be filed no later than November 22, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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

4

5:05-cv-1362 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Samira Ansari sansari@samiralaw.com, 

Jingming (James) Cai jcai@flglawyer.com 

Timothy E. Herr candteh@mylawfirm.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.