Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01362/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01362-2/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

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.

NOT FOR CITATION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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

GOLDINE’S FED.R.CIV.P. 41 MOTION

TO DISMISS

[Re: Docket No. 23]

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), defendant Barry Goldine moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

against him. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. This court finds this matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the papers presented, the

court denies the motion.1
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

2

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from the parties’ dispute over, among other things, profits allegedly

generated by sales of wheels, tires and related accessories on “www.bigwheels.net” and the rights to

use the Bigwheels website. On March 2, 2005, plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court asserting claims

for (1) breach of implied contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3)

breach of implied contract for failure to perform, (4) fraud (intentional misrepresentation),

(5) conversion, (6) unjust enrichment and (7) misappropriation of ideas.

On April 5, 2005, defendant Goldine removed the matter to this court. He filed several

counterclaims against plaintiff, alleging, among other things, that plaintiff has infringed his copyright in an

alleged proprietary database of wheel and tire fittings.

On June 29, 2005, this court (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s

counterclaims with leave to amend, but (2) denied plaintiff’s motion for remand to the state court. The

court concluded that removal was proper because plaintiff’s state claims for conversion, unjust

enrichment and misappropriation were preempted by the Copyright Act. Plaintiff did not dispute

preemption, and requested leave to amend his complaint to convert his state law claims to a federal

claim for copyright infringement. To the extent plaintiff indicated that he could properly assert a claim

for relief, the court gave him leave to file an amended complaint and ordered him to do so by July 8,

2005.

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the July 8, 2005 deadline; and on July 15, 2005,

defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against him for his failure to comply with

this court’s June 29, 2005 order. Shortly afterward, on July 18, 2005, plaintiff filed his amended

complaint. Defendant nevertheless insists that dismissal is warranted, asserting that plaintiff’s counsel

willfully failed to file the amended complaint by July 8, 2005 as ordered.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of

any claim against the defendant.” FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b). “Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is a sanction, to

be imposed only in ‘extreme circumstances.’” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063
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

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996)). In

determining whether such a dismissal is warranted, “the district court must consider five factors: ‘(1)

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191

F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th

Cir. 1998)).

III. DISCUSSION

Goldine argues that dismissal is required because plaintiff’s counsel “intentionally disregarded

the Court’s order,” even after being reminded by defense counsel of the July 8, 2005 deadline. (Mot.

at p. 3). He further asserts that “[t]he risk of prejudice to Defendant[] is severe as Defendant is now

left in limbo as to how to amend his answer . . ..” (Id.)

A plaintiff may choose not to amend its complaint, even if given the opportunity to do so. See

Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1063 (concluding that plaintiff’s “considered decision to forego amending her

complaint was perfectly proper, and was not sanctionable.”). Here, however, plaintiff apparently

intends to proceed in this action through his amended complaint, and it is true that the amended

pleading was not timely filed in accordance with this court’s June 29, 2005 order. As noted above,

plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the instant motion, and he has not otherwise attempted to offer

any explanation for the delay. The court does not condone the failure to comply with its orders or

applicable rules and warns plaintiff and his counsel against future noncompliance.

Nevertheless, this action is still in its early stages, and defendant has not convincingly

demonstrated a risk of prejudice – if any – caused by the 10-day delay in the filing of plaintiff’s

amended complaint. Accordingly, the court concludes that the instant motion does not present

“extreme circumstances” which warrant dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant Goldine’s motion to dismiss 
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

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) is DENIED. The August 23, 2005 hearing is VACATED.

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

5

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.