Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01497/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01497-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re:

Bashas’ Inc., et al., 

Debtors, 

_________________________________

Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates,

Inc.

Plaintiff,

vs.

Bashas’ Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-01497-PHX-FJM

No. BK 09-16050-JMM

Adv. No. 12-AP-0226-JMM

ORDER

The court has before it Kubicek’s motion for reconsideration of our Order dated May

8, 2013 (doc. 22), in which we held that Kubicek had failed to state a claim against Bashas’

for either direct or contributory copyright infringement. 

Kubicek’s complaint asserted broad allegations that Bashas’ willfully infringed

Kubicek’s architectural plans and misappropriated proprietary materials, but it asserted no

facts to identify what copyrighted materials Bashas’ infringed or how or when the materials

were copied or used. The majority of the allegations in the complaint involved claims of

direct and contributory infringement that occurred before Bashas’ Chapter 11 filing, all of

Case 2:12-cv-01497-FJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/13 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

- 2 -

which were discharged in bankruptcy. We concluded that there were no allegations in the

complaint that would support a claim against Bashas’ for post-petition direct or contributory

infringement. Kubicek challenges this conclusion in its motion for reconsideration, again

referring to paragraphs in the complaint that only generally assert allegations involving

unidentified “Copyrighted Works,” with no reference to when or how these “Works” were

infringed. This is insufficient to state a claim, particularly regarding post-petition conduct.

Kubicek again complains that it was unable to plead with more particularity because

it had an inadequate opportunity to conduct discovery. It now asserts that it has obtained

“newly discovered evidence” in the trial against The Bosely Group, Kubicek v. Bosely, CV11-2112-PHX-DGC (the “Bosely trial”), putting it “in a position for the first time to plead

with substantial detail the particulars of Bashas’ infringing activities.” Motion at 5. First,

this “newly discovered” evidence allegedly came to light during the Bosely trial, almost a

month before our ruling on Bashas’ motion to dismiss. Yet Kubicek never sought to amend

its response to the motion before us. Second, this “new” evidence still does not identify

when the allegedly infringing actions occurred–an essential element in this case given that

Bashas’ liability is limited to post-petition conduct. Third, the so-called new evidence was

obtained from “knowledgeable former employees of Bashas’ and Mr. Bosley himself,”

Motion at 4. But there is no allegation that Kubicek was somehow prevented from timely

obtaining this information. Kubicek has been aggressively pursuing these claims against

Bashas’ and Bosely for years. Evidence sufficient to support its claims would have been

discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Kubicek’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 22). 

DATED this 17th day of June, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01497-FJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/13 Page 2 of 2