Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389-3/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 1

 Although Livingston’s opposition was filed after the date set forth in the stipulation

and order filed June 30, 2006, the Court nonetheless will consider the opposition, as Nova

does not argue Nova has been prejudiced by Livingston’s delay.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEYA MORGAN aka KEYARASH MAZHARI

aka KEYA MAZHARI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2389 MMC

ORDER GRANTING NOVA WINES,

INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No.8)

Before the Court is defendant Nova Wines, Inc.’s (“Nova”) motion to dismiss the

claims asserted against it, pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff Pete Livingston (“Livingston”) has filed opposition to the motion;1

 Nova

has filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see

Civil L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the August 4, 2006 hearing, and rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

In the instant action, Livingston asserts claims for copyright infringement,

conversion, and unfair competition in violation of § 17200 of the California Business and

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Professions Code, against defendants Keya Morgan (“Morgan”), Keya Gallery, Nova,

Janina Gehn (“Gehn”), and NTG/XLink (“NTG”). All of Livingston’s claims involve the

assertedly unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs of Marilyn Monroe taken by

Livingston’s father, Carl Perutz (“Perutz”). Livingston alleges he is “the sole heir of his

father’s photographic work.” (See Compl. ¶ 1, 10.)

Livingston alleges Morgan and Keya Gallery “obtained at auction 58 original Marilyn

Monroe prints (some with Carl Perutz[‘s] name[ ] stamped on the back) as well as

negatives and contact sheets.” (See id. ¶ 11.) According to Livingston, Morgan and Keya

Gallery willfully and knowingly violated the copyright laws by distributing and offering to

distribute the photographs without Livingston’s permission. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 12.) Livingston

further alleges Morgan and Keya Gallery “suborned infringement through the website

www.marilyn-online.de, which in turn promoted the sale and distribution of [the] copyrighted

photographs[.]” (See id. ¶ 12.)

Livingston additionally alleges that Gehn created a website in Frankfurt Germany,

marilyn-merlot.de, which is owned by defendant NTG, and which advertised the sale and

distribution of the copyrighted photographs. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 7.) Livingston further alleges

Nova “knowingly took at least one image of Perutz’[s] Monroe photographs from the

aforementioned German website and created a derivative work from it without securing

rights to Perutz’s photograph.” (See id. ¶ 1.) According to Livingston, Nova “placed that

derivative work on their wine bottles, posters, other commercial artwork, websites and

publicity photos to make money for themselves throughout the world.” (See id.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 8

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain

“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). In addition, “[e]ach averment in a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.” Fed.

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A district court may dismiss a complaint that fails to comply with the

requirements of Rule 8. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996). 

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) cannot be granted unless “it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would

entitle him to relief.” See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Dismissal can be

based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged

under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Generally, a district court, in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, may not consider any

material beyond the pleadings. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner And Co.,

Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990). Material that is properly submitted as part

of the complaint, however, may be considered. See id. Documents whose contents are

alleged in the complaint, and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not

physically attached to the pleading, also may be considered. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14

F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court may consider any document “the

authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily

relies,” regardless of whether the document is referred to in the complaint. See Parrino v.

FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998). Finally, the Court may consider matters that

are subject to judicial notice. See Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d

1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

In analyzing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all material

allegations in the complaint, and construe them in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. See NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The Court may disregard factual allegations if such allegations are contradicted by the facts

established by reference to exhibits attached to the complaint. See Durning v. First Boston

Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). Conclusory allegations, unsupported by the

facts alleged, need not be accepted as true. See Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115,

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

1121 (9th Cir. 1992). 

DISCUSSION

Nova’s motion to dismiss is based on two arguments. First, Nova argues the state

law conversion and unfair competition claims, as asserted against Nova, are preempted by

the Copyright Act. Second, Nova argues Livingston’s claim for copyright infringement, as

asserted against Nova, is subject to dismissal because Livingston has failed to adequately

identify the copyrighted material Nova purportedly infringed, to allege how and when such

infringement occurred, and to submit evidence supporting his allegation that he owns the

subject photographs and that said photographs have been registered with the United

States Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”).

A. Preemption of State Law Claims

“A state law cause of action is preempted by the Copyright Act if two elements are

present.” Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998). “First, the

rights that a plaintiff asserts under state law must be rights that are equivalent to those

protected by the Copyright Act.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). “Second, the

work involved must fall within the ‘subject matter’ of the Copyright Act as set forth in 17

U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” Id.

Here, the only factual allegation against Nova in support of Livingston’s conversion

and unfair competition claims is that Nova used one of Perutz’s copyrighted Marilyn

Monroe photographs, without Livingston’s permission, to create a derivative work. (See

Compl. ¶ 1.) The Copyright Act expressly provides that “the owner of copyright . . . has the

exclusive rights . . . to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” See 17

U.S.C. § 106. Accordingly, the first part of the test for preemption is met. See, e.g.,

Kodadek, 152 F.3d at 1213 (holding unfair competition claim was “based solely on rights

equivalent to those protected by the federal copyright laws” where claim was based entirely

on publication and sale of copyrighted images).

The second part of the preemption test also is met. As noted, Livingston’s

conversion and unfair competition claims against Nova are based entirely on Nova’s

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 7
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

 The Court notes there is no allegation that Nova, as opposed to Morgan and Keya

Gallery, converted the actual photographs at issue, as opposed to the images contained

therein. See Compl. ¶ 23-24 (alleging Morgan and Keya Gallery are in possession of the

photographs and refuse to relinquish them). “Conversion of tangible property involves

actions different from those proscribed by the copyright laws, and thus is not preempted.” 

Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 1984). 

5

unauthorized use of a copyrighted photograph. Photographs fall within the subject matter

of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(3) (extending copyright protection to “pictorial, graphic,

and sculptural works”); 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “pictorial” works to include photographs).

Accordingly, Livingston’s conversion and unfair competition claims against Nova are

preempted by the Copyright Act and, consequently, are subject to dismissal. See, e.g.,

Kodadek, 152 F.3d at 1213 (finding state law unfair competition claim preempted where

claim was based entirely on publication and sale of copyrighted images); Dielsi v. Falk, 916

F. Supp. 985, 992 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (finding conversion claim preempted where claim was

based on unauthorized use and distribution of copyrighted work).2

B. Copyright Claim

Nova contends Livingston’s copyright claim, as asserted against Nova, fails to state

a claim because Livingston “has insufficiently identified the alleged copyrighted materials

that [ ] Nova allegedly infringed or how and when [ ] Nova allegedly infringed any

copyrighted work owned by [Livingston],” (see Motion at 1), and has not submitted a copy

of the relevant copyright registration(s) or proved his ownership of the subject photographs.

 Although Livingston alleges 58 copyrighted Perutz photographs are at issue in the

instant action, and that Nova used “at least one” of Perutz’s Marilyn Monroe photographs

without permission to create a derivative work, (see Compl. ¶¶ 1), Livingston does not

identify any of the specific photographs at issue. In particular, the complaint does not

identify the photograph(s) purportedly used by Nova without Livingston’s authorization. 

Additionally, Livingston fails to identify the derivative work Nova purportedly created from

the subject photograph(s), or when such derivative work was created. 

A complaint for copyright infringement fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a) if

it does not allege the specific copyrighted work that has been infringed or how and when

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 5 of 7
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

3

 As noted, Nova further argues the complaint is deficient because Livingston has

not attached to the complaint any evidence of his ownership of the subject photographs or

a copy of the relevant copyright registration. Livingston alleges he is “the heir of the estate

of Carl Perutz, the holder of the copyrighted Monroe pictures,” and that “[e]ach of the

Monroe pictures are the subject of a valid Certificate of Copyright Registration issued by

the Register of Copyrights on August 3, 2004.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.) The Court is aware

of no authority, however, and Nova has cited none, requiring a copyright plaintiff to attach

evidence to its complaint proving the allegedly infringed works are owned by the plaintiff

and registered with the Copyright Office. Here, Livingston adequately alleges that he is the

owner of the subject photographs, and that each such photograph has been registered with

the Copyright Office. (See id.) Nova may, of course, investigate such allegations in

discovery.

6

the asserted infringement occurred. See, e.g., Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press, 413

F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1148 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (holding complaint that fails to identify specific

copyrighted work at issue “does not put Defendants or the Court on sufficient notice of the

copyright claim”); Flynn v. Health Advocate, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 293 at *35-36 (E.D.

Penn. 2004) (“To state a claim for copyright infringement under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure Rule 8, the Complaint must state which specific original work is the subject of

the copyright claim, that plaintiff owns the copyright, that the work in question has been

registered in compliance with the statute and by what acts and during what time defendant

has infringed the copyright.”); Adams v. Warner Brothers Pictures Network, 2005 U.S. Dist.

Lexis 30369 at *5 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding copyright plaintiff must identify specific work at

issue and by what acts defendants infringed). As Livingston has failed to identify the

specific photograph Nova purportedly infringed or to identify the specific acts of

infringement by Nova, Livingston’s copyright claim, as asserted against Nova, fails to

satisfy the requirements of Rule 8.3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Nova’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED as

follows:

1. Livingston’s claims for conversion and unfair competition as asserted against

Nova are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, as preempted by the Copyright Act.

2. Livingston’s copyright claim as asserted against Nova is hereby DISMISSED with

leave to amend.

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. Any amended complaint shall be filed no later than September 1, 2006. If

Livingston fails to file an amended complaint by that date, his copyright claim, as asserted

against Nova, will be deemed dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 7 of 7