Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00371/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00371-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gabriel Prado, an individual, and Sandy 

Kreiman, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Cunningham & Associates, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation, 

 Defendant. 

No. CV-11-00371-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

Cunningham & Associates, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation, 

 Counterclaimant, 

v. 

Gabriel Prado, an individual, 

 Counter-defendant. 

Cunningham & Associates, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation, 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

Auction Nation LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 10
2

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

Auction Nation LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company, 

 Third-Party Counterclaimant, 

v. 

Cunningham & Associates, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation, 

 Third-Party Counter-defendant 

Pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Third-Party 

Plaintiff/Third-Party Counter-defendant Cunningham and Associates, Inc. 

(“Cunningham”): (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Remand 

(Doc. 19) and (2) Motion to Amend Reply to Third-Party Counterclaim (Doc. 32). For 

the following reasons, we grant Cunningham’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

remand this case to state court. We deny Cunningham’s Motion to Amend as moot. 

BACKGROUND 

In the original complaint filed in small claims court, Plaintiff Gabriel Prado 

alleged that Cunningham reneged on payment for services rendered including 

photographing and describing materials for Cunningham to use in an on-line auction for 

HD Steel. (Doc. 1, Ex. A). Cunningham brought counterclaims for breach of contract, 

misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty against Prado, stemming 

from Cunningham’s assertion that Prado produced substandard work. Cunningham also 

filed a Third-Party Complaint, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets against Auction 

Nation LLC (“Auction Nation”), of which Prado is the sole member and manager. 

Because the damages sought in these claims exceeded $10,000, the case was removed to 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 10
3

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

the Superior Court of Arizona. Auction Nation then brought a Third-Party Counterclaim 

against Cunningham for copyright infringement and removed the case to federal court 

asserting that this Court has federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 5); (Doc. 1, Ex. B). 

Auction Nation’s counterclaim alleges the following. Auction Nation contracts 

with companies to facilitate on-line auctions. (Doc 5). On or about November 6, 2010, 

Auction Nation started work as an independent contractor on behalf of Cunningham to 

set up an auction for HD Steel. Auction Nation completed its work for Cunningham on or 

about November 12, 2010. Auction Nation prepared photographs and written descriptions 

for items to be auctioned during the HD Steel auction. Cunningham received the 

copyrighted photographs and descriptions but did not pay for them at that time. Once the 

auction began, Auction Nation learned that Cunningham was using Auction Nation’s 

copyrighted photographs and descriptions without payment or license.1

 Auction Nation 

again demanded payment but Cunningham refused. 

On February 24, 2011, Auction Nation filed a counterclaim against Cunningham 

under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. In response, Cunningham filed a Motion 

for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and a 

Motion for Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1447(c). (Doc. 19). Cunningham based its 

motion on a fact outside Auction Nation’s pleadings, and therefore, the Court notified the 

parties of its intent to convert the 12(c) motion into a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Rule 12(d). Auction Nation was provided a “reasonable opportunity to 

 

1

 Although Auction Nation asserted in its counterclaim (Doc. 5) that Cunningham used 

the provided materials without license, Auction Nation conceded in its Response to the 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 19) and in its 12(d) statement (Doc. 34) that 

there was an implied license agreement. 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 10
4

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

present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). In its Rule 

12(d) statement, Auction Nation argues that “Cunningham’s Motion for leave to Amend – 

and the Amended Reply itself – create a procedural quandary.” (Doc. 34). Auction Nation 

says “[t]he pleadings at best now are a moving target, and at worst, Cunningham’s 

Motion is premised on a superseded pleading.” On these grounds, Auction Nation 

requests that this Court deny Cunningham’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

allow Cunningham to file a motion for summary judgment. 

The Court rejects Auction Nation’s argument because Cunningham’s proposed 

amended Answer does not affect this Court’s decision, as discussed in detail below. In 

any event, Cunningham’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings necessarily assumed 

that, “taking all the allegations in [Auction Nation’s] pleadings as true, [Cunningham 

was] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. Cnty. of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 

(9th Cir. 1999); see Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 

2004) (stating that in ruling on a 12(c) motion the court must accept as true all allegations 

in the plaintiff’s pleadings and treat as false the allegations in the defendant’s answer that 

contradict the plaintiff’s allegations). Thus, Cunningham’s motion was in no way 

“premised on a superseded pleading” as Auction Nation suggests because the 12(c) 

motion was based on Auction Nation’s pleadings. Because the Court considers evidence 

outside of the pleadings, including the supplemental materials provided by Auction 

Nation, Cunningham’s motion is treated as one for summary judgment.

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 10
5

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

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion for Summary Judgment 

 A. Legal Standard 

 Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 56(c)(2). Substantive law determines which facts are material and “[o]nly disputes 

over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly 

preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

248 (1986). “A fact issue is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could 

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, the nonmoving 

party must show that the genuine factual issues “‘can be resolved only by a finder of fact

because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.’” Cal. Architectural 

Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).

B. Analysis 

Cunningham asserts that Auction Nation may not raise a copyright infringement 

claim because Auction Nation granted Cunningham an implied nonexclusive license to 

use the materials created for the on-line auction. (Doc. 19). Although Auction Nation to 

some extent raises the argument that Cunningham failed to assert this affirmative defense 

in its answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), Auction Nation 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 10
6

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

nevertheless concedes that it granted a nonexclusive license to Cunningham in its 

Response to Cunningham’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and again in its Rule 

12(d) statement, stating that it is “beyond dispute” that there was an implied license and 

that Auction Nation created and distributed copyrighted materials at Cunningham’s 

request with the intent that Cunningham would use the materials in the on-line auction of 

HD Steel. (Docs. 20 & 34). Furthermore, Cunningham raised the affirmative defense in 

its first amended answer to Auction Nation’s counterclaim, to which Auction Nation filed 

a notice of no objection. (Docs. 32 & 33). However, Auction Nation contends that, even 

so, it may raise a copyright infringement claim when there has been a “total failure in the 

performance of the contract.” (Doc. 20 (quoting Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 

586 (9th Cir. 1993))). 

A copyright infringement claim does not exist as a matter of law when the licensor 

grants an implied nonexclusive license to the licensee, unless the licensor terminates the 

agreement, see Rano, 987 F.2d at 586 (“After the agreement is terminated, any further 

distribution would constitute copyright infringement.”), or the licensee otherwise exceeds 

the scope of the agreement, see Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 n.5 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (explaining that a party may be liable for copyright infringement when the use 

of the copyrighted materials exceeded the scope of the implied license (citing Oddo v. 

Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1984))). Relying on Rano, Auction Nation argues that 

Cunningham materially breached the implied license agreement by failing to pay Auction 

Nation for the materials it produced for the HD Steel auction, and therefore Auction 

Nation is entitled to sue for copyright infringement. (Doc. 34). 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 10
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

 Auction Nation’s reliance on Rano is misplaced. Auction Nation suggests that a 

material breach alone gives rise to a copyright infringement claim. (Doc. 20). However, it 

is clear from Rano that a material breach, a subsequent, explicit rescission of the 

agreement by the non-breaching party and the breaching party’s continued unauthorized 

use of the copyrighted materials after rescission are all needed for a copyright claim. See 

Rano, 987 F.2d at 586 (“a material breach of a licensing agreement gives rise to a right of 

rescission which allows the nonbreaching party to terminate the agreement”). 

 In its brief, Auction Nation quotes the following language from Rano: “when there 

is a ‘total failure in the performance of the contract’ by the breaching party, ‘any further 

distribution would constitute copyright infringement.’” (Doc. 20 (quoting Rano, 987 F.2d 

at 586)). In making this assertion, counsel for Auction Nation misrepresents the outcome 

determinative language that drives the court’s holding in Rano. The actual holding of 

Rano reads “[a]fter the agreement is terminated, any further distribution would constitute 

copyright infringement.” 987 F.2d at 586. In Rano, the Plaintiff explicitly terminated his 

agreement with the defendant. Id. at 583 (“[The plaintiff] informed [the defendant] that 

he ‘did not authorize [defendant] to sell any more of [his] photographs.’”). Thus, if a 

material breach had existed, the plaintiff in Rano could have brought a copyright 

infringement claim because “it [was] clear that [the plaintiff] attempted to rescind the 

agreement.” Id. at 586. 

 Auction Nation does not have a copyright infringement claim because even though 

Cunningham used Auction Nation’s materials in its online auction of HD Steel without 

paying for them, which is a material breach, Auction Nation does not allege any facts or 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 10
8

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

make any argument to suggest that it terminated its agreement with Cunningham prior to 

Cunningham’s use of Auction Nation’s copyrighted materials in the HD Steel auction. 

(Docs. 5 & 34). Auction Nation cites two emails it sent to Cunningham regarding the HD 

Steel auction, but both fail to establish that Auction Nation rescinded the license it 

granted Cunningham to use its copyrighted materials. The first email, dated November 15, 

2010, states in part: “I don’t think it will be a good idea for me to set-up any more on-site 

auctions . . . I would like to work out the payment arrangements on this before hand 

(sic).” (Doc. 35, Ex. 1). The second email, dated November 18, 2010, states in part: “I see 

the auction is up and online . . . I will stop by tomorrow to pick up the check for HD 

Steel.” (Id., Ex. 3). Neither of these emails constitutes a clear attempt to rescind the 

agreement. See Rano, 987 F.2d at 583, 586; see also Fairview Dev. Corp. v. Aztex 

Custom Homebuilders, LLC, 2009 WL 529899, at *13 (D. Ariz. Mar. 03, 2009) (“[A] 

notice of rescission must be clear and unambiguous, conveying the unquestionable 

purpose to terminate a contract.”). 

Auction Nation’s reliance on Atkins v. Fischer, 331 F.3d 988 (D.C. Cir. 2003), is 

similarly misplaced. At issue in Atkins was not whether the breaching party failed to 

perform all of its duties, but rather whether there was an implied grant of a nonexclusive 

license and if so, whether the licensee used the materials beyond the scope agreed upon 

by the parties. Id. at 992. In the present case, Auction Nation concedes that it granted a 

nonexclusive license to Cunningham to use the materials Auction Nation created for the 

auction. Moreover, Auction Nation does not assert, let alone direct the Court to 

admissible evidence to support a claim, that Cunningham used the pictures and 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 8 of 10
9

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

descriptions for its online auction of HD Steel beyond the scope of the implied license. 

Auction Nation also fails to cite to any admissible evidence that would support a claim 

that it terminated the agreement. Rather, Auction Nation simply argues that Cunningham 

did not pay for the work. (Docs. 5 & 34). A “mere allegation of breach of contract does 

not create federal jurisdiction, even if the contract involves copyright.” Rano, 987 F.2d at 

584. Accordingly, because Auction Nation has failed to provide sufficient evidence to 

withstand summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim, Cunningham’s motion 

is granted. 

II. Motion to Remand 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. 

Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Court “must” dismiss an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” “If at any time before final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. An 

order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, 

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

 The sole basis for federal jurisdiction was Auction Nation’s assertion of a 

copyright infringement claim. (Doc. 1). For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses 

that claim. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the remaining claims. Accordingly, 

the case is remanded to state court. See Effects Assocs., 908 F.2d at 559. (“Copyright 

ownership is comprised of a bundle of rights; in granting a nonexclusive license to 

Cohen, Effects has given up only one stick from that bundle—the right to sue Cohen for 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 9 of 10
10

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

copyright infringement. It retains the right to sue him in state court on a variety of other 

grounds, including breach of contract.”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Cunningham’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is granted. The 

Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to state court. 

 2. Cunningham’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 32) is denied as moot. 

 DATED this 15th day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00371-GMS Document 37 Filed 07/15/11 Page 10 of 10