Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL TURTLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP, INC., et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-03-3922 MMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF; DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

Before the Court is the administrative motion of defendants Sanctuary Records

Group, Inc., BMG Distribution, 5.1 Label Group, LLC, Sanctuary Records Group Ltd., and

Sanctuary Group, Plc, to continue the hearings on two motions filed by plaintiffs Joel Turtle

and Matthew Kaufman, specifically, plaintiffs’ motions to amend and for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs have filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to defendants’ administrative motion, the Court rules as

follows:

1. Defendants have not shown good cause exists to continue the hearing dates on

either the motion to amend or motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, defendants’

administrative motion is hereby DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeks, inter alia, a finding on claims that

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 192 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 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

27

28

1

The proposed TAC is Exhibit Q to the Declaration of William E. Weiss, filed July 25,

2005, in support of plaintiffs’ motion to amend.

2

are alleged for the first time in plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),

specifically, plaintiffs’ proposed claims that certain of said defendants are engaging in

infringement by “online” sales, (see Proposed TAC ¶ 21;1

 Pls.’ P. & A. in Support of Mot. for

Summ. J. at 9:20-27), and that defendant 5.1 Label Group, LLC interfered with plaintiffs’

prospective economic advantage, (see Proposed TAC at 11:8-9, 12-13; Pls.’ P. & A. in

Support of Mot. for Summ. J. at 20:9 - 21:4). Because such claims are not alleged in the

operative pleading, and the Court has yet to consider plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add

such claims, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to such claims is DENIED without

prejudice.

3. Plaintiffs’ request, made in its opposition to defendants’ administrative motion, to

continue the settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2005 is DENIED, without

prejudice to plaintiffs’ seeking such relief from Magistrate Judge Chen.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 192 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2