Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00545-3/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ODNIL MUSIC LIMITED and

FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC

LIMITED,

CASE NO. CIV. 05-0545 WBS PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION

TO RESCIND

KATHARSIS, LLC, WILLIAM JOSEPH

SCHECK and NATHANIEL

CHRISTOPHER SCHECK,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs filed suit in March 2005, alleging copyright

infringement by defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), plaintiffs now move to dismiss defendants’

counterclaims and cross-claims, alleging that these claims were

filed in violation of the court’s scheduling order of May 25,

2005. Defendant William Sheck move for an order rescinding the

Magistrate Judge’s order that defendants pay sanctions for

failing to appear. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 7
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

2

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

According to the complaint, defendant Katharsis LLC

owns the Owl Club Ale House located in Roseville, California,

(compl. ¶ 4), and defendants William Scheck and Nathaniel Scheck

are members of Katharsis LLC, (Id. ¶ 5). Plaintiffs allege that

they own the copyrights to four songs written by Bob Marley, 

(id. ¶ 14, Schedule A), that defendants caused to be publicly

performed in the Owl Club Ale House on September 2, 2004 and

other dates, (id. ¶ 11, Schedule A). Plaintiffs further allege

that defendants did not have a license from plaintiffs or from

the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers

(“ASCAP”) to cause those songs to be performed. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13).

Defendants Nathaniel Scheck and William Scheck filed an

answer to the complaint on April 7, 2005. Defendants did not

file any counterclaims or cross-claims at that time. On May 25,

2005, the court issued its Scheduling Order, which read, in part,

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is

permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been

shown under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

Undeterred by the scheduling order, William J. Scheck on June 9,

2005 filed what he styled as a “cross-complaint,” against

existing plaintiffs and others associated with ASCAP and its

legal team.

On June 29, 2005, the court denied defendants’ motion

to dismiss. The court’s order noted that defendant Karthasis LLC

was not represented because William and Nathaniel Scheck,

unlicensed as attorneys, are unable to represent that company. 

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 7
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 Magistrate Judge’s order stated in part:

Plaintiffs appeared for the August 8 settlement conference

by counsel and two representatives. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

hourly rate is $225 and counsel spent 1.75 hours traveling

to court, waiting for an appearance by defendants until

excused by the court, and returning to his office. Local

Rule of Court 16-270 required counsel be accompanied by one

or more persons authorized to settle the case on any terms. 

One of plaintiffs’ principals traveled from the east coast

to attend the conference, necessarily devoted 36 hours to

the matter and incurred expenses including $802 air travel,

$97 hotel, $42 car rental and $20 for meals. Another

representative for plaintiffs left San Francisco at 5:45

a.m. to attend the 9:00 conference (and afterward remained

in Sacramento on other business, returning to San Francisco

later in the day). The fair hourly recompense for these

3

(June 29, 2005 Order at 2); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506

U.S. 194, 202 (1993). The parties at the hearing represented to

the court that they would consider settling the case soon. 

Therefore, the court ordered the litigation stayed by 60 days for

the purpose of conducting a court supervised settlement

conference. (June 29, 2005 Order at 5).

On July 1, 2005, the parties were notified of a

settlement conference set for August 8, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. before

Magistrate Judge Nowinski. (Notice of Hearing, Docket # 17). 

Defendants failed to appear at the noticed time, and the

Magistrate Judge issued an order to appear at 9:00 a.m. on August

24, 2005 to show cause why defendants should not be sanctioned

for their failure to appear. (Order August 9, 2005). Defendants

failed to appear on August 24 as well. (Order August 29, 2005 at

2). Defendants were subsequently ordered by the Magistrate Judge

to pay $3,342.25 in fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs’

representatives and plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing for and

attending the August 8 settlement conference. (Id. at 2-3).1

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 7
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

representatives is $50. The total expense incurred by

plaintiffs to attend the settlement conference was

$3,342.25. It is appropriate that this needless expense be

transferred to defendants. 

(Magistrate Judge Nowinski Order Aug. 29, 2005 at 2-3).

4

II. Discussion

There are two motions presently before the court:

• Plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion

to dismiss based on the improper procedure used by

defendants to file their counterclaims and cross-claims and

based on the defendants’ alleged failure to plead their

civil RICO claims with particularity; and

• Defendant William Scheck’s motion to rescind the Magistrate

Judge’s order of August 29, 2005.

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss

Defendant’s addition of a “cross-complaint” against

plaintiffs and others not captioned as plaintiffs was made

without leave of the court. This is in violation of the

scheduling order of May 25, 2005. Defendant neither sought leave

of the court to amend his pleading nor showed good cause to be

allowed to do so. Therefore, the “cross-complaint” will be

stricken from the record. If defendants seek to add any

counterclaims or cross-claims, they may move to do so, setting

forth the reasons why they believe there is good cause to amend.

See Johnson, 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

B. Defendants’ Motion to Rescind

Next the court considers defendant William Scheck’s

motion to rescind the Magistrate Judge’s order requiring

defendants to pay plaintiffs $3,342.25 in fees and expenses for

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 4 of 7
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

2 Only defendant William Scheck moves to rescind the

Magistrate Judge’s order. Because none of the other defendants

so move, and because William Scheck is not authorized to

represent any of the other defendants, the court considers the

motion only as it pertains to the sanctions ordered to be paid by

defendant William Scheck.

5

defendants’ failure to appear at the noticed settlement

conference.2 Defendant William Scheck states that he “was unable

to attend the settlement conference on 8 August 05 before

Magistrate Judge Nowinski because he was seriously ill with food

poisoning. The other Defendants were not required to attend the

settlement conference because they never agree [sic] to it.” 

(Def. William Scheck’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Rescind Order ¶

2). As to why defendants did not attend court at the time they

were ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned,

William Scheck states that the “order was never duly served upon

Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 3).

The court has no knowledge of William Scheck’s health

on August 8, 2005. Further, all defendants were required to

attend the settlement conference. (Notice of Hearing, Docket

#17). The fact that one or more of defendants did not “agree” to

heed the court’s order is irrelevant.

However, defendant William Scheck’s argument that he

was not served with the order to show cause has merit. Local

Rule 5-137(f) requires that 

[c]opies of all written orders signed and filed by the

Court conventionally or electronically, whether drafted

by counsel or by the Court, shall be served forthwith

by the Clerk on all counsel who have appeared in the

action. A certificate of service by the Clerk shall

accompany the order as served and shall be attached to

the order as filed.

No provision is made for how service is to be effected on a pro

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 5 of 7
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 “On motion and on such terms as are just, the court may

relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . .

(6) any other reason justifying relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(6).

4 The representative who appeared with plaintiffs’

attorney at the settlement conference was an employee of ASCAP,

not the plaintiffs.

6

se litigant such as William Scheck. However, Local Rule 5-

135(d), governing service to parties of filed documents, provides

that “[u]nless a party expressly waives service, copies of all

documents submitted to the Court shall be served upon all parties

to the action . . . .” There is no evidence that William Scheck

has agreed to receive service electronically through the court’s

CM/ECF system or is even able to access that system. Due to

clerical error on the part of the court, the order to show cause

was not mailed to defendants. Therefore, William Scheck has made

a sufficient showing to permit the court to relieve him of the

effect of the sanctions order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6).3

Rather than issue another Order to Show Cause with the

hope that it will be properly served on all defendants, thereby

necessitating still another appearance, the court in its

discretion elects to leave plaintiffs with the remedy of pursuing

their attorneys fees incurred in attending the settlement

conference as part of their total claim for attorneys fees in the

event that plaintiffs prevail on the merits at the conclusion of

these proceedings.4

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiffs’ motion to

dismiss defendant William Scheck’s counterclaims and cross-claims

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, without prejudice to

defendants’ ability to move to amend or supplement the pleadings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant William Scheck’s

motion to rescind the Magistrate Judge’s order of August 29, 2005

imposing sanctions be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, as to

defendant William Scheck only.

DATED: October 4, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/05/05 Page 7 of 7