Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04656/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04656-6/pdf.json

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

---

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER 

&

CIRESI L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS 

AT 

LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

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 

LA1 60122575.1 STIP. RE EXT TO RESPOND TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT - C 05-4656 PJH 

Robert F. Hinton, Bar No. 98110 

rfhinton@rkmc.com 

Joel D. Covelman, Bar No. 97500 

jdcovelman@rkmc.com 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 

2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 

Telephone: (310) 552-0130 

Facsimile: (310) 229-5800 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

BEST BUY ENTERPRISE SERVICES, INC. and 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IDENTITY ARTS, a California Limited 

Liability Company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BEST BUY ENTERPRISE SERVICES, 

INC., a Minnesota Corporation, BEST 

BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota Corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 05-4656 PJH 

FIRST STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND 

STIPULATION OVERALL); [PROPOSED] 

ORDER THEREON 

This stipulation to extend the time for Defendants, Best Buy Enterprises, Inc. and Best 

Buy Co., Inc. (collectively “Best Buy”) to respond to the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, 

Identity Arts, LLC (“IA”) is the first such stipulation with respect to the First Amended 

Complaint and is the second such stipulation overall, the first stipulation to extend time to 

respond having been made with respect to IA’s original Complaint. This stipulation is based 

upon the following mutually agreed facts. 

1. On February 15, 2006 the Court heard and granted Best Buy’s motion directed to 

IA’s original Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

/ / / 

Case 4:05-cv-04656-PJH Document 53 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 5
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER 

&

CIRESI L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS 

AT 

LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

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 

LA1 60122575.1 - 2 - STIP. RE EXT TO RESPOND TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT - C 05-4656 PJH 

2. On February 14, 2006, however, IA had filed a First Amended Complaint. 

3. In granting Best Buy’s motion directed to IA’s original Complaint, the Court 

granted Best Buy 30 days from the date of its decision to respond to IA’s First Amended 

Complaint. 

4. On February 17, 2006 counsel for Best Buy raised with IA’s counsel aspects of the 

First Amended Complaint that Best Buy contends make this new pleading subject to a motion 

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 9(b). Specifically, Best Buy contends 

that: 

 a. The registrations (Exhibits L and M to the First Amended Complaint) of 

copyrights in the audiovisual works known as the “Rough Cut Submarine Spot” and the edited 

“Submarine Spot” are defective on their faces because they are based upon purported assignments 

of rights from the three authors to IA dated January 3, 2006, that this Court has already found (in 

its ruling on plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion) to be ineffective, and since a proper 

copyright registration is a prerequisite to filing a copyright infringement action, IA cannot 

establish its right to sue Best Buy for infringement of these two works; 

 b. IA is already aware that Best Buy had no access to the third copyrighted 

work in issue, the so-called “Courtesy Project” script (attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended 

Complaint), because access was disputed in plaintiff’s previously filed motion for preliminary 

injunction, and Best Buy produced undisputed evidence that it had no access to this work, and so 

IA lacks reasonable likelihood that it can prevail on the claim of copyright infringement as to this 

work in the First Amended Complaint; 

 c. Even if plaintiff could state a colorable claim of infringement of the 

“Courtesy Project” script, its copyright registration is defective, because it shows only one author 

of the work, while the script itself (attached to the First Amended Complaint also as Exhibit A) 

shows two authors; and since a valid copyright registration is a prerequisite to bringing suit for 

infringement this claim too is flawed; 

 d. IA’s fourth, fifth, and sixth claims are all based upon California state law, 

but incorporate by reference into themselves the three preceding copyright infringement claims, 

Case 4:05-cv-04656-PJH Document 53 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 5
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER 

&

CIRESI L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS 

AT 

LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

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 

LA1 60122575.1 - 3 - STIP. RE EXT TO RESPOND TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT - C 05-4656 PJH 

and this is improper, because to the extent a claim based upon state law incorporates allegations 

of copyright infringement it is preempted by the federal law under sections 301 and 106 of the 

Copyright Act; 

 e. IA’s fourth claim for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition 

Law (“UCL”), Business and Professions Code § 17200 contains a new allegation (at paragraph 

135) of an express fraudulent misrepresentation by Best Buy, but this allegation fails to plead this 

fraud with specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); 

 f. IA’s fourth claim for violation of the UCL confusingly alleges (at 

paragraph 130) that Best Buy has violated all three prongs (the unfair, unlawful and fraudulent) of 

this statute, but fails to plead the necessary elements of a claim for any of the three prongs; 

 g. IA’s fifth claim alleging breach of an implied contract is preempted by the 

Copyright Act to the extent it alleges that Best Buy promised not to use the copyrighted works 

without paying IA for them; and to the extent it pleads that best Buy has pirated IA’s marketing 

strategy IA is estopped from pleading an implied contract when the express written contract 

between IA and Best Buy already covers this subject; 

 h. IA’s sixth claim for unjust enrichment fails to state the elements of such a 

claim. 

5. While IA’s counsel is not at present prepared to concede the merits of any of the 

issues pertaining to the First Amended Complaint raised by counsel for Best Buy, nevertheless 

neither side wishes to burden the Court with needless motion practice. 

WHEREFORE THE PARTIES HERETO, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE 

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD MAKE THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION: 

6. Counsel for IA has agreed to consider the issues raise by counsel for Best Buy, and 

within thirty-one days of this stipulation to either propose to the Court that it grant leave to IA to 

file and serve a Second Amended Complaint, or should IA decide to stand on its First Amended 

Complaint, to notify counsel for Best Buy that it must respond to the First Amended Complaint. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:05-cv-04656-PJH Document 53 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-04656-PJH Document 53 Filed 03/20/06 Page 4 of 5
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER 

&

CIRESI L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS 

AT 

LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

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 

LA1 60122575.1 - 5 - STIP. RE EXT TO RESPOND TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT - C 05-4656 PJH 

ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation upon agreed facts recited above IT IS ORDERED that: 

Defendants, Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc., need not respond 

to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint during the thirty-one days through and including April 17, 

2006. On or before April 17, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel shall notify counsel for the defendants 

whether leave of court will be sought to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint. Should 

leave be sought to file a Second Amended Complaint, upon its filing and service, the defendants 

shall have fifteen days to file and serve their response to the Second Amended Complaint. 

Should plaintiff instead elect to stand on its First Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s counsel shall 

notify defendants’ counsel in writing of this election on or before April 17, 2006. Thereafter, 

defendants shall have fifteen days from their counsel’s receipt of written notice of plaintiff’s 

election to stand on the First Amended Complaint to file and serve their response to that pleading. 

DATED:__________________ __________________________________ 

 HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

3/20/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:05-cv-04656-PJH Document 53 Filed 03/20/06 Page 5 of 5