Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06615/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PUBG CORPORATION, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NETEASE, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-06615-JSW 

REDACTED ORDER DISMISSING 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION1

Re: Dkt. No. 53 

 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the parties’ joint letter brief 

addressing the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, which the Court shall 

refer to as PUBG II. The Court has considered that brief, relevant legal authority, the record in 

this case, and the record in the related case PUBG Corporation, et al. v. NetEase, Inc., et al., No. 

18-cv-02010-JSW (“PUBG I”). The Court concludes it does not require oral argument from the 

parties. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction, denies 

Plaintiffs’ request to amend under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(a), and dismisses this case 

without prejudice.

BACKGROUND 

In PUBG I, Plaintiffs alleged Defendants copied protected elements of its video game 

“Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds” and asserted claims for copyright infringement of in violation 

of 17 U.S.C. sections 101, et seq., trade dress infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 

1125(a), unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 

17200, et seq., and unfair competition in violation of California common law. 

1

 The Court filed a version of this Order under seal. The redactions herein comport with 

rulings the Court has made on the parties’ motions to seal. 

Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 6
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

motion for a preliminary injunction. Those motions are scheduled to be heard on May 8, 2020. 

 On February 21, 2020, the parties submitted a stipulated request for a joint case 

management conference and to brief the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction over the 

matter. In that stipulation, Defendants stated that “on February 11, 2020, [they] determined, for 

the first time, that the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation because the 

stipulated dismissal filed in PUBG I does not expressly state that the Court retained jurisdiction 

over the matter.” (Dkt. No. 50, Stipulation at 1:12-15.)2 

The Court granted the request to permit briefing and denied the request for a case 

management conference without prejudice. 

 On February 25, 2020, the parties filed their joint letter brief. 

ANALYSIS 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause 

lies outside this limited jurisdiction” unless otherwise shown. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that “[i]f parties wish to 

provide for the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing settlement agreement, they can seek 

to do so,” by stating in the dismissal that the court would retain jurisdiction or by incorporating the 

terms of the settlement agreement in the order. Id. (emphasis added/in original). “Absent such 

action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 381-82. 

Plaintiffs do not suggest there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the 

current claims, and it is undisputed that the parties are not completely diverse. (PUBG II, Compl. 

¶¶ 5-9.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Court did not state in the Dismissal Order that it would 

retain jurisdiction. Although the stipulation refers to the settlement, that alone is not sufficient to 

incorporate the terms of the parties’ agreement into the Dismissal Order. See, e.g., Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 381 (“The judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement 

2

 Defendants note they also raised the issue in their reply in support of the motion to dismiss, 

which was filed on February 11, 2020. 

Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 6
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

do not suffice to make them part of his order.”); O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 

1995) (dismissal order stating it was “based on” settlement not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, 

even where settlement was filed with the court); Situ v. Wong, No. 13-cv-05102 JD (NJV), 2015 

WL 433477, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015). 

 Arata v. NuSkin Int’l., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citing cases); see also Situ, 2015 WL 433477, at *2. As noted in Kokkonen, “compliance with the 

terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s ‘retention of jurisdiction’ over the settlement 

contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order.” 511 U.S. at 

381 (emphasis added). By its terms, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over this matter in the 

Dismissal Order, and the parties did not incorporate the terms of the Settlement Agreement into 

the Dismissal Order. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over PUBG II. 

Plaintiffs urge the Court to amend the Order of dismissal in PUBG I pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which permits a court to correct a “clerical mistake or a mistake 

arising from oversight or omission.” “Rule 60(a)’s touchstone is fidelity to the intent behind the 

original judgment,” and in the Ninth Circuit the focus is on a court’s original intent. Garamendi v. 

Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078 (9th Cir. 2012); see also id. at 1080 (quoting Burton v. Johnson, 975 

F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1992)). The Court “may use Rule 60(a) to facilitate enforcement of its 

judgments” and to correct any ambiguities. Id. at 1078. However, the Court cannot amend the 

order under the guise of correction “to reflect a new and subsequent intent.” Id. at 1080 (quoting 

Burton, 975 F.2d at 964). 

Plaintiffs rely, in part, on Kang v. Harrison to support their argument that the Court should 

amend the Dismissal Order. 789 Fed. Appx. 68, 69 (9th Cir. 2020). In Kang, the Ninth Circuit 

affirmed the district court’s decision to amend a dismissal order to include language retaining 

jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and concluded that “ample evidence in the 

record” supported “a finding that this amendment comports with the district court’s original 

intent.” Id. The court noted that a docket entry resulting from a settlement conference before a 

magistrate judge noted that the court “[would] retain jurisdiction over the settlement.” Id. The 

Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

court also looked to the terms of the settlement agreement, which provided that the district court 

“has jurisdiction over this Agreement.” Id. 

Plaintiffs argue the Court’s intent can be inferred from its Order relating this matter to 

PUBG I. However, when Plaintiffs moved to relate the two cases, 

 They also did not specifically 

alert the Court to paragraph 10 of the Complaint in PUBG II. Instead, Plaintiffs focused their 

argument on the standards set forth in Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-12. The Court’s 

decision to grant the motion to relate was based on that standard 

Plaintiffs also argue the Court’s intent can be inferred from an Order in PUBG I, in which 

the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to stay the matter for a brief period of time. In their 

stipulation, the parties stated they had settled the matter pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and 

asked to stay the matter until April 12, 2019 because the terms of the agreement required certain 

actions to be taken before the case could be dismissed with prejudice. When the Court approved 

the stipulation, it also denied a motion to dismiss without prejudice and stated Defendant could 

renew the motion if the settlement was not finalized. (Dkt. No. 100.) When the Court stated 

Defendant could renew a motion to dismiss so that the case could proceed if the settlement was 

not finalized, did not 

intend to suggest it would retain jurisdiction over disputes relating to the Settlement Agreement 

after the parties dismissed the matter. Moreover, at that time, the case was pending, and the Court 

would have had the inherent authority to summarily enforce the agreement. See, e.g., Thomas v. 

Shree Jalaram, LLC, No. 18-cv-06409-LB, 2019 WL 3503806, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) 

(citing In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900, 902-03 (9th Cir. 1985) but denying motion to enforce settlement 

because original case had been dismissed). 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 6
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Dismissal Order. 

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The 

Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2020 

__

JE 

U 

Case 4:19-cv-06615-JSW Document 57 Filed 03/03/20 Page 6 of 6