Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01162/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01162-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IO GROUP, INC. dba TITAN MEDIA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LA PERNA, et al., 

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-01162 PVT

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RENEWED MOTION ON

FURTHER SHOWING

[Docket No. 3]

In a March 15, 2008 letter, defendant Mark La Perna stated that he was indigent and could

not afford counsel. He has requested further guidance from the court. Defendant La Perna’s letter is

deemed a request for appointment of counsel.1 Based on the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant La Perna’s motion is DENIED without prejudice

to a renewed motion in the event defendant can make an adequate showing that he qualifies for

appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney

to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However, “[t]here is no automatic right to the

appointment of counsel; and in a civil case, a federal court has considerable discretion in

determining whether to appoint counsel.” See, e.g., L.C. Hall v. Trisun, Not Reported in F. Supp.2d,

2005 WL3348956 (W.D. Tex.). Absent specific statutory authorization, an appointment of counsel

Case 5:08-cv-01162-PVT Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 2

may be made in “extraordinary circumstances.” Id. (internal citations omitted). A finding of

“extraordinary circumstances” generally turns on two factors: (1) the type and complexity of the

case; and (2) the abilities of the individual bringing the action. Id. 

In the present case, plaintiff has alleged that defendant La Perna is one of forty-five

defendants who committed copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious

copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, false designation of origin and

trademark infringement. Specifically, plaintiff has alleged that defendant La Perna and certain other

defendants created a network to pirate audiovisual works and photographs from a professional

producer of gay erotica. Defendant La Perna has denied all the allegations set forth in the complaint. 

Aside from showing financial need, defendant La Perna has not demonstrated any 

“extraordinary circumstances” that would warrant an appointment of counsel here. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to a renewed motion for

appointment of counsel in the event defendant is later able to present extraordinary circumstances

that warrant further review.

Dated: March 31, 2008

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01162-PVT Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 3

copies mailed on 3/31/2008 to:

Mark LaPerna

4325 S. Bruce Street, Apt. No. 92

Las Vegas, NV 89119

 _EunHae Park for____

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:08-cv-01162-PVT Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3