Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00281/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00281-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

1

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-9(b), as a Corporation, Builders Sound may only appear

formally through a member of the bar. Because Michael Pickman was not a member of the bar, Builders

Sound could not make a formal appearance at the hearing. The Court so informed Mr. Pickman and

heard comments on Mr. Pickman's version of the facts surrounding WHG's Motion. 

1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 JOHN O'HURLEY, et al.

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 JAMO US INC., et al. 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 07-281 WDB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT ACTION BE REASSIGNED

AND DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE 

This action was filed on January 16, 2007. On August 8, 2007, the Court held a

telephonic hearing in response to the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel that was filed by

Plaintiffs' counsel, the Wang, Hartmann & Gibbs firm ("WHG"). Eric Wolf, Esq., an

associate at WHG, appeared on behalf of WHG. Michael Pickman from Plaintiff Builders

Sound also was present at the telephonic hearing.1

 On the date of the hearing, Defendants

had not yet been served with the Complaint and, thus, had not yet appeared and were not

Case 3:07-cv-00281-CRB Document 14 Filed 09/07/07 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

 Absent consent of all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make casedispositive rulings. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

present at the hearing. As of the date this Order is being filed, Defendants still have not been

served. 

After the hearing on August 8, 2007, the undersigned issued an Order holding WHG's

Motion to Withdraw in abeyance and directing that, by no later than Friday, August 31, 2007,

Plaintiffs must file either: (a) a written statement that WHG would remain as their counsel,

or (b) substitution papers for replacement counsel. In either case, the Court ordered Plaintiffs

to include in their written submission a commitment for a date certain when Defendants

would be served. 

The Court also explained in its prior Order that if Plaintiffs did not file a submission

by August 31, 2007, the undersigned promptly would issue a Report and Recommendation

to the District Court that the action be dismissed with prejudice.

2

 

Plaintiffs did not file a submission by August 31, 2007. The Court has heard nothing

from Plaintiffs since the hearing on August 8, 2007. Accordingly, the Court now reassigns

this case to the District Court and RECOMMENDS that it be DISMISSED with prejudice

for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: parties, WDB, Stats

Case 3:07-cv-00281-CRB Document 14 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2