Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07093/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07093-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRS Recovery, Inc., a Virginia

Corporation, and DALE MAYBERRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN LAXTON, aka

johnlaxton@gmail.com, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-07093 CW

ORDER DENYING AS

MOOT PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN REM

(DOCKET NO. 9) AND 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO DISMISS (DOCKET

NO. 12)

Plaintiffs CRS Recovery, Inc. and Dale Mayberry move, pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A), for leave to proceed in rem against

the Internet domain name RL.com. They also move, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), for an order entering a

default judgment against Defendants John Laxton and Northbay Real

Estate, Inc. (NRE). Defendants Laxton and NRE oppose the motion

and separately move for an order dismissing the Complaint. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion to dismiss. The matter was decided on

the papers. The Court DENIES both motions as moot.

BACKGROUND

This case involves the alleged theft of two internet domain

names from Mayberry. On July 23, 1995, Mayberry registered the

domain name RL.com through Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI). First

Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶ 10. NSI secured Mayberry's control of

Case 4:06-cv-07093-CW Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 4
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

the URL through his e-mail address, dale@MAT.net. Id. At that

time, Mayberry was also the registrant of MAT.net. Id.

On December 19, 2003, Mayberry's attempt to renew the

registration for MAT.net was denied, and its registration shifted

to Beijing Sinonets Network & Telecom Co., Ltd. FAC ¶ 11. MAT.net

was then transferred to BIZCN.com. Id. Between November 18, 2003

and January 16, 2004, the new registrants used their control of

MAT.net and the subordinate email address dale@MAT.net to transfer

the registration of RL.com from Mayberry's NSI account to

BIZCN.com. FAC ¶ 12. Mayberry asserts that the new registrants

falsely impersonated him to complete the transfer. Id. Mayberry

subsequently lost control over the domain name RL.com. Id. 

A series of changes in RL.com's registration ensued,

culminating with its transfer to Laxton in May, 2005. FAC ¶ 13-14.

In July, 2005, Mayberry transferred his right, title and interest

in RL.com to CRS for valuable consideration. FAC ¶ 15. This

transfer included an understanding that CRS would transfer the

registration of RL.com back to Mayberry upon recovery. Id.

Laxton is the sole shareholder of NRE. Laxton Declaration

¶ 1. NRE owns and operates RL.com as part of its business

operations. Laxton Declaration ¶ 6. On May 6, 2005, Laxton paid a

significant sum for the purchase of the RL.com domain name. Laxton

Declaration ¶ 5. He asserts that the purchase was an honest

transaction, and that he checked for domain name disputes with the

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) before purchasing

RL.com. Id. He did not discover any disputes. Id. 

 On November 15, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint. The

Case 4:06-cv-07093-CW Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 4
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

North Bay Real Estate, Inc. is not the same entity as

Defendant Northbay Real Estate, Inc., and is not a party in this

case.

3

fifth claim for relief requested leave to proceed in rem against

the domain name RL.com. After unsuccessful attempts to serve

Defendants personally, Plaintiffs' counsel mailed copies of the

summons and complaint to North Bay Real Estate, Inc.'s P.O. Box and

to Laxton's P.O. Box.1 On January 26, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a

motion to proceed in rem and have default judgment entered on the

fifth claim. That same day, NRE and Laxton's counsel contacted

Plaintiff's counsel, stating that Defendants had just retained him

and that he needed an extension of time to review the case and file

a responsive pleading. On February 15, 2007, Defendants Laxton and

NRE moved to dismiss the Complaint. On March 17, 2007, Plaintiffs

filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, along with a

"proposed" FAC. 

The FAC asserts four claims for relief: (1) conversion and

conspiracy to convert internet domain names from Mayberry; (2)

intentional interference with contracts between Mayberry and NSI;

(3) unfair competition in violation of California Business &

Professions Code § 17200; and (4) declaratory relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2201. FAC ¶ 19-43. The fifth claim for relief for leave

to proceed in rem against the domain name RL.com is not included in

the FAC. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend the

Case 4:06-cv-07093-CW Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 4
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

party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” Defendants have not filed a

responsive pleading in this action. See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (a motion to

dismiss is not a “pleading” within the meaning of Rule 15). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs need not seek leave to file their FAC. 

Because Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint, Defendants' motion

to dismiss the original Complaint is DENIED as moot. 

II. Motion to Enter Default on Fifth Claim for Relief

Because the fifth claim for relief is no longer at issue, the

motion for leave to proceed in rem against the Internet domain name

RL.com and to enter default judgment against Defendants Laxton and

NRE is DENIED as moot. 

Although it appears that Laxton and NRE were not served

properly, their counsel has offered to accept service on their

behalf. See Declaration of Val D. Hornstein in support of

Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. Defendants must file

an answer or Rule 12(b)(6) motion within thirty days from the date

of this order. The case management conference scheduled for May 4,

2007 is continued until June 12, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. If Defendants

file a motion to dismiss, the hearing on that motion shall be

noticed for that same day.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/28/07

________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07093-CW Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 4