Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00711/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00711-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

HIRE A HELPER, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVE LIFT, LCC and SIMPLE 

MOVERS LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45) filed by Plaintiff 

Hire A Helper, LLC.

I. Background

On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff Hire A Helper, LLC initiated this action by filing a 

Complaint against Defendants Move Lift, LLC and Simple Movers Limited Liability 

Company. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint brought claims for copyright infringement and 

unfair competition based on material on the Defendants’ websites that Plaintiff alleged 

infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrights. Id. Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Application for (1) 

Temporary Restraining Order and (2) Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction 

Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2). That same day, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a 

temporary restraining order, and set a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary 

injunction for April 24, 2017. (ECF No. 5). 

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

“[O]n or before April 9, 2017 all allegedly infringing content that [Defendants] were 

able to identify from Plaintiff’s allegations as a purported copy of allegedly copyrightprotected material was removed from [Defendants’] websites.” Declaration of Rod Dias, 

ECF No. 15, at ¶ 5. On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to take the hearing on 

Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction off of the Court’s calendar (ECF No. 12)

(the “Motion to Take Hearing off Calendar”). The Motion to Take Hearing off Calendar 

was based, in part, on “Defendants hav[ing] represented they have removed from their 

websites the material on which the ex parte application [for a preliminary injunction] was 

based.” Id. at 1. On April 17, 2017, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Application for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 13). On April 18, 2017, the Court issued 

an Order granting the Motion to Take Hearing off Calendar and denying Plaintiff’s request 

for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 18).

On April 17, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions based on 

(1) Plaintiff and its counsel’s refusal to withdraw its motion for preliminary 

injunction despite the sole basis for harm argued therein ceasing to exist and 

Defendant[s’] counsel notifying Plaintiff as such; 

(2) unilaterally filing a Motion to Take Hearing Off Calendar due to the very 

reasons that Defendants informed Plaintiff’s counsel of, but failing to notify 

Defendant[s’] counsel of this Motion until the Saturday of a holiday

weekend—when the opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction was 

due that following Monday (see Dkt. 12); and 

(3) Plaintiff’s refusal to grant an extension of time for Defendants’ counsel to 

oppose the motion for preliminary injunction.

ECF No. 17 at 2 (footnote omitted). On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to the 

Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 21). On May 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Reply in 

Support of the Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 22).

On April 25, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for unfair 

competition (ECF No. 19) (“Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss”). On May 16, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) (the “FAC”). The FAC does not 

bring a claim for unfair competition but does bring claims for negligent and intentional 

interference with prospective economic advantage. See ECF No. 23. On May 24, 2017, 

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for negligent and prospective 

interference with prospective economic advantage (ECF No. 27) (“Defendants’ Second 

Motion to Dismiss”). On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants’ Second 

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29). On June 19, 2017, Defendants filed a Reply in Support 

of Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30). 

On October 6, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion for Sanctions 

and granting Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 37). On October 13, 2017, 

Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC. (ECF No. 38). 

The parties began discussing a possible settlement in September 2017, and engaged 

in settlement negotiations between November 2017 and January 2018. Declaration of 

David Lee, ECF No. 46-1, at ¶ 2; Declaration of Duane Horning, ECF No. 47-1, at ¶ 5. On 

January 17, 2018, Plaintiff decided to terminate settlement discussions. Horning Decl. at 

¶ 6; Lee Decl. at ¶ 2.

On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice (ECF 

No. 45) (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss”). On February 12, 2018, Defendants filed a 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 46). On February 16,

2018, Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 47). 

II. Contentions of the Parties

The parties agree that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 45-1; ECF No. 46 at 5). Plaintiff contends that the Court should not impose any 

conditions on a dismissal without prejudice because “Defendants will not suffer any 

cognizable ‘legal prejudice’ from dismissal of the action.” (ECF No. 45-1 at 7). 

Defendants request that any order granting dismissal without prejudice be conditioned 

upon Plaintiff’s payment of $69,632.50 in costs and attorney fees. (ECF No. 46 at 9). 

Defendants contend that $69,632.50 represents their “legal efforts and expenses to date that 

will be wasted if and when Plaintiff files a second duplicative action based on a dismissal 

without prejudice.” Id. Defendants itemize their expenses as follows:

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

Task Amount Spent

Briefing Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary 

injunction and the Motion for Sanctions

$44,116.50

Briefing Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss $3,066.00

Briefing Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss $4,258.50

Preparing Defendants’ Answer to the FAC $2,744.00

Negotiating a settlement $6,836.50

Briefing Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss $8,611.00

Lee Decl. at ¶ 6. 

Defendants contend that “Plaintiff’s request for dismissal without prejudice leaves 

Defendants at risk of a second, duplicative litigation.” (ECF No. 46-1 at 8). Defendants 

contend that, if Plaintiff does file another action reasserting the claim at issue in this case, 

the $69,632.50 of legal work discussed above “would be wasted” because it “is not the type 

of material that could or would be re-used in subsequent litigation.” Id. Defendants 

contend that “[t]his case is not in its infancy” considering it was initiated in April 2017 and 

five motions have been filed. (ECF No. 46 at 9). Defendants contend that “Plaintiff has 

not been diligent in moving to dismiss” because Plaintiff “was on notice that the allegedlyinfringing material had been removed by no later than April 11, 2017.” (ECF No. 46). 

Plaintiff contends that “litigation of this case is still in the early stages” considering 

no summary judgment motions have been filed, no discovery has been conducted, and no 

trial date has been set. (ECF No. 47 at 8). Plaintiff contends that it was diligent in moving 

to dismiss because the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations from September 

2017 through January 2018 and “[o]nce Plaintiff learned that settlement was not going to 

be consummated, it moved to dismiss the action.” (ECF No. 47 at 7). 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks an order dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (ECF No. 45 at 1). Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an 

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the 

court considers proper.” “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal 

under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal 

prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (footnote 

omitted) (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987)). “[T]he 

expense incurred in defending against a lawsuit does not amount to legal prejudice,” and 

therefore does not justify denying a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 41(a)(2). 

Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). Expenses incurred

by defendants do not justify denying a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss because “[t]he 

defendants’ interests can be protected by conditioning the dismissal without prejudice upon 

the payment of appropriate costs and attorney fees.” Id. “Imposition of costs and fees as 

a condition for dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory however.” Id. (citing 

Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989)). “[I]f

the district court decides it should condition dismissal on the payment of costs and attorney 

fees, the defendants should only be awarded attorney fees for work which cannot be used 

in any future litigation of these claims.” Id. (citing Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652 (9th

Cir. 1993)). 

In determining whether to award costs to a defendant after a voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice, courts generally consider the following factors: 

(1) any excessive and duplicative expense of a second litigation; 

(2) the effort and expense incurred by a defendant in preparing for trial; 

(3) the extent to which the litigation has progressed; and 

(4) the plaintiff’s diligence in moving to dismiss.

Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-CV-01726-LHK, 2012 WL 893152, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 

13, 2012) (citing Williams v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538, 540 (N.D. Cal. 

2005)). 

Factors one and two weigh against imposing conditions on the dismissal of this case 

because Defendants may be able to use the legal work produced in this case in any 

subsequent, duplicative litigation. Factor three weighs against imposing conditions on the 

dismissal of this case because this case is still in its early stages. Factor four also weighs 

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17-cv-0711-WQH-JMA

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

against imposing conditions on the dismissal of this case because Plaintiff was diligent in 

moving to dismiss: while Plaintiff has been aware that Defendants removed the allegedly 

infringing material from their websites since April 2017, (ECF No. 12 at 1), and Plaintiff 

did not move to dismiss this case until January 24, 2018, (ECF No. 45), motions were 

pending before the Court from April 2017 through October 6, 2017, (ECF Nos. 17, 27, 37),

and the parties participated in settlement discussions from September 2017 through January 

17, 2018, Lee Decl. at ¶ 2; Horning Decl. at ¶¶ 5–6. Accordingly, the Court declines to 

impose any conditions on the dismissal of this case without prejudice. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED. The FAC (ECF No. 23) 

is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Dated: April 17, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 48 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6