Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922-16/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 PLAINTIFF

MATTHEW KAUFMAN’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is the motion, filed February 11, 2006, by plaintiff Matthew

Kaufman (“Kaufman”) for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-9(b). Specifically, Kaufman seeks reconsideration of the Court’s orders of

September 20, 2005 and December 1, 2005, to the extent the Court found therein that a

triable issue of fact exists as to whether Kaufman has standing to assert copyright

infringement claims as to copyrights issued to Jonathan’s Music and/or Modern Love

Songs (collectively, ”MLS”).

Kaufman argues he is entitled to file a motion for reconsideration because there was

a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments

which were presented to the Court.” See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). The Court disagrees.

Kaufman asserts the Court failed to consider that the evidence on which defendants

relied, specifically, testimony offered by Jonathan Richman (“Richman”) that MLS was a

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 251 Filed 02/15/06 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

Additionally, Kaufman asserts the Court failed to consider that he has a legal

interest in the copyrights for the reason that the settlement agreement between Kaufman

and Richman is an agreement “between the two former partners of [MLS] deciding who

would sue on behalf of the partnership.” (See id. at 12:9-11.) Any such argument,

however, assumes that MLS was a partnership between Kaufman and Richman, which

fact, as noted, is in dispute.

2

d.b.a. for Richman, had been “discredited” in light of the Court’s having earlier denied

Richman’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of ownership of MLS. (See Pl.’s

Mot., filed February 11, 2006, at 8:1-4.) Kaufman did not previously raise this argument,

and thus the Court could not have failed to consider such argument. In any event,

Richman’s motion was denied on the ground that Richman, as the moving party, failed to

show it was undisputed that MLS was a d.b.a. for Richman. Such finding is not

inconsistent with the Court’s finding that Kaufman, similarly, is unable to show it is

undisputed that MLS was a partnership between Kaufman and Richman.1

Kaufman also asserts the Court failed to consider that Kaufman is a beneficial owner

of the copyrights issued to MLS. This argument, likewise, was not raised by Kaufman, and

thus the Court could not have failed to consider such argument. Moreover, the example of

a beneficial owner now offered by Kaufman, specifically, “an author who had parted with

legal title to the copyright in exchange for percentage royalties based on sales or license

fees,” (see id. at 10:18-21), is factually inapplicable to the instant action because Kaufman

is not an author.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Kaufman’s motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 251 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2