Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER McINTOSH, CASE NO. CV F 07-1080 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, ORDER ON NCUE/LOTUS MOTIONS IN

LIMINE 

vs. (Docs. 198-200.)

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES,

INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

Defendants Northern California Universal Enterprises Company, Inc. (“NCUE”) and Lotus

Developments, L.P. (“Lotus”) filed three motions in limine, in which defendants Dennis W. DeWalt,

Inc. (“DeWalt”) and City of Wasco (“Wasco”) joined. Plaintiff Roger McIntosh (“Mr. McIntosh”)

opposed NCUE and Lotus’ motions in limine. This Court needs no oral argument on NCUE and Lotus’

motions in limine. This Court issues the following rulings on NCUE and Lotus’ motions in limine and

VACATES the February 12, 2010 hearing on NCUE and Lotus’ motions in limine.

NCUE AND LOTUS’ MIL NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE COMMENT THAT SIMILAR STREET

1

NAMES, LOT NUMBERS OR LAND BOUNDARIES EVIDENCE COPYING

NCUE and Lotus, joined by Wasco and DeWalt, seek to exclude comment or argument that

Maps 5472 and 6451's shared identical lot numbers, street names and exterior boundaries evidence

copying due to unfair prejudice and jury confusion.

As used in the headings, “MIL” refers to motion in limine.

1

1

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 252 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 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

27

28

The motion’s thrust and scope are unclear. NCUE and Lotus explain no unfair prejudice or jury

confusion from that which they seek to exclude.

The identical, sequential lot numbering, street names and land boundaries address substantial

similarity of Maps 5472 and 6451 although by themselves such elements are not copyrightable. 

Defendants are free to argue that such matters are not evidence of substantial similarity. 

Tentative maps and supporting documents are subject to copyright protection. “The Tentative

Map itself falls within the category of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” under 17 U.S.C. § 102,

providing copyright protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of

expression.” Del Madera v. Rhodes and Gardner, 820 F.2d 973, 976 (9 Cir. 1987). “Effort expended th

to create the Tentative Map and supporting documents is effort expended to create tangible works of

authorship. As such, this effort is within the scope of copyright protection.” Del Madera, 820 F.2d at

976.

NCUE and Lotus offer no guidance to craft a particular order they seek.

ORDER

This Court DENIES the motion in limine.

NCUE AND LOTUS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE COMMENT THAT

DEFENDANTS INFRINGED COPYRIGHT INTEREST IN IMPROVEMENT PLANS

NCUE and Lotus, joined by DeWalt, seek to exclude comment or argument that defendants

violated the copyright in the McIntosh improvement plans unless Mr. McIntosh demonstrates evidence

2

of copying, how the McIntosh improvement plans are copyrightable, and that the McIntosh improvement

plans were completed by the end of 1992. 

The motion’s thrust and scope are unclear. NCUE and Lotus appear to attempt to force Mr.

McIntosh to pursue a claim of direct copying. Mr. McIntosh is not so limited.

“Absent evidence of direct copying, ‘proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that

the defendant had ‘access’ to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are ‘substantially similar.’”

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9 Cir. 2006). “[T]here th

The “McIntosh improvement plans” refer to Mr. McIntosh’s subdivision and landscape designs depicted

2

in technical drawings which he claims are subject to his February 22, 2007 copyright registration certificate.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 252 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 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

27

28

must be substantial similarity between infringing work and the work copyrighted; and that similarity

must have been caused bythe defendant’s having copied the copyright holder’s creation.” Roth Greeting

Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9 Cir. 1970). th

Mr. McIntosh’s copyright registration is presumed valid. Defendants may attempt to rebut the

presumption.

“Under the copyright laws, the registration of a copyright certificate constitutes prima facie

evidence of the validity of a copyright in a judicial proceeding . . .” Entm’t Research Group, Inc. v.

Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9 Cir. 1997). “To rebut the presumption, an th

infringement defendant must simply offer some evidence or proof to dispute or denythe plaintiff’s prima

facie case of infringement.” Entm’t Research Group, 122 F.3d at 1217.

“[I]nadvertent mistakes on registration certificates do not invalidate a copyright and thus do not

bar infringement actions, unless . . . the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office by making

the misstatement.” Urantia Found. v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963 (9 Cir. 1997). The presumption th

of a registered copyright’s validity may be overcome by “evidence or proof to dispute or deny the

plaintiff’s prima facie case of infringement.” Entm’t Research Group, 122 F.3d at 1217.

The motion lacks support.

ORDER

This Court DENIES the motion in limine.

NCUE AND LOTUS’ MIL NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COMMENT ON COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

OF PUMP STATION AND LANDSCAPE PLANS

NCUE and Lotus seek to exclude comment or argument that they violated the copyright in Mr.

McIntosh’s pump station and landscape plans based on NCUE possession of them unless Mr. McIntosh

demonstrates evidence of copying, how the plans are copyrightable, and that the plans were completed

by the end of 1992. 

The motion’s thrust and scope are unclear. NCUE and Lotus fail to explain that the pump station

and landscape plans are disconnected to matters subject to Mr. McIntosh’s copyright. Evidence of

NCUE’s possession of the pump station and landscape plans maysupport substantial similarity between

Maps 5471 and 6451.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 252 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 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

27

28

“Absent evidence of direct copying, ‘proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that

the defendant had ‘access’ to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are ‘substantially similar.’”

Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1076. “[T]here must be substantial similarity between infringing work and

the work copyrighted; and that similarity must have been caused by the defendant’s having copied the

copyright holder’s creation.” Roth Greeting Cards, 429 F.2d at 1110. 

The motion lacks support.

ORDER

This Court DENIES the motion in limine.

ORDER AS TO DUTY OF COUNSEL

Counsel are cautioned against filing motions for reconsideration without legal prerequisites

firmly established. Failure of counsel to raise or articulate points or issues does not justify

reconsideration.

Counsel are discouraged from filing motions “for clarification” when such motions are nothing

more than a statement of disagreement with the Court’s ruling and/or an attempt to modify the ruling. 

Being surprised at the Court’s ruling, no matter where the I.Q. chart’s result lands, is not a basis for such

a motion.

During trial, the parties’ counsel shall meet with the Court each morning prior to jury arrival to

address evidentiary issues and disputes. The jury will NOT be kept waiting. The Court will rule on

matters to the extent possible prior to commencement of trial each day out of the jury’s presence. If such

ruling depends on receipt of testimony or other evidence, the Court will rule as appropriate upon the

receipt of such testimony or evidence. If evidentiary problems are anticipated, the parties’ counsel are

required to notify the Court immediately that a hearing outside the jury’s presence will be required, but

should not expect such hearing while the jury waits in the jury room. Such hearings will take place

before jurors arrive or after they depart.

Finally, should objections be made in front of the jury on a purported violation of a motion in

limine ruling, counsel are expected to object stating the LEGAL ground, followed by reference to the

/ / /

/ / /

4

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 252 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 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

27

28

number of the motion in limine (e.g., “Objection, relevance, violation of plaintiff’s motion in limine no.

4.”)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 252 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 5