Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01302/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01302-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bigwheels.net
Defendant
Barry Goldine
Plaintiff
Boris Kantemirov
Defendant
Skip Lightfoot
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDINE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KANTEMIROV, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C06-01302 MJJ

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

Pending before the Court is Defendant Boris Kantemirov’s Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. #5). Plaintiff Barry Goldine has filed an Opposition (Doc. #15).

The Court now rules as follows. 

I. Background

On February 22, 2006, Goldine filed this action against Defendants Kantemirov and Skip

Lightfoot, asserting claims for: (1) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §106; (2) unfair competition

under California Business and Professions Code §17200; (3) breach of contract; (4) misappropriation

of trade secrets under California Civil Code §3426; (5) common law misappropriation; (6) common law

unfair competition; and (7) civil conspiracy. (Doc. #1.) According to Goldine’s Complaint, Goldine

owns and operates the website www.bigwheels.net as part of his “off-line” business, Adds Wheel

Warehouse. (Compl. at ¶3.) The website incorporates a database that includes tens of thousands of

specifications for fitting various vehicles with oversized wheels and tires that Goldine compiled and

copyrighted (Certificate of Registration no. TX 6-159-388). In early 2002, Goldine “engaged”

Case 3:06-cv-01302-MJJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Kantemirov as a website developer to work on Goldine’s website. Goldine alleges that, while working

as a website developer on bigwheels.net, Kantemirov extorted money from Goldine and solicited

business from several of bigwheel.net’s competitors and offered to provide them with confidential and

proprietary information, including information about the database. In January 2005, Goldine shut down

the website. Goldine subsequently contracted with another website developer to build a new website

for bigwheels.net, using industry standard MySQL database program and Goldine’s own database. The

bigwheels.net website was re-launched soon thereafter. According to Goldine, during this time,

Kantemirov “misappropriated [Goldine’s] proprietary [d]atabase and set up his own on-line wheels and

tires websites . . . with Defendant Lightfoot.” In response, Goldine sent Defendant Lightfoot a ceaseand-desist order regarding the alleged copyright infringement. However, Goldine alleges that

Defendants continue to use his database in their websites without Goldine’s permission. Goldine

thereafter filed this lawsuit. 

Kantemirov now moves to dismiss Goldine’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1). 

II. Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the Court presumes lack of

jurisdiction until the party invoking jurisdiction proves it exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden

of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See id. A party challenging the Court's jurisdiction under

Rule 12(b)(1) may do so by raising either a facial attack or a factual attack. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d

1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer,

373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction, the Court must accept

the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156, 1157

n.1 (9th Cir.2001). In contrast, when the movant raises a factual attack, the Court may consider extrinsic

evidence presented on the jurisdictional issue. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th

Cir.1987). Further, in a evaluating a factual attack the Court need not assume that the truthfulness of

Case 3:06-cv-01302-MJJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 5
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 Court notes that this case was initiated when Goldine filed his Complaint in this Court; the action was not

removed from state court. Thus, even if the Court were to grant Kantemirov’s Motion, remand is inappropriate. 

3

the allegations and may resolve factual disputes, if necessary. See White, 227 F.3d at 1242. 

III. Discussion

In his Motion, Kantemirov seeks an order finding that no subject matter jurisdiction exists over

this action and remanding this action to state court.1 According to Kantemirov “[t]his Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s [] Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because [a] majority

of the claim[s] asserted in the Complaint do[] not arise under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the

United States and there is already a [s]tate action concerning these claims.” (Doc. #5-1, Mot. at 2.) The

Court will address each of Kantemirov’s proffered bases, in turn. 

Section 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over actions “arising under the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States.” Thus, to succeed on his Motion, Kantemirov must show that no

federal question exists on the face of Goldine’s well-pleaded Complaint. Reviewing the Complaint,

Goldine has pled a claim for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and seeks relief in the form

of damages under disgorgement under the Copyright Act. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), “[t]he district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to

. . . copyrights[.]” The Ninth Circuit has noted that “just because a case involves a copyright does not

mean that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc.,

336 F.3d 982, 985-86 (9th Cir. 2003). However, claims for copyright infringement fall within the

purview of §1338(a). See Id. Accordingly, because Goldine has expressly pled a copyright

infringement claim and seeks relief under the Copyright Act, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

over that claim. 

As to Goldine’s state law claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), provided they are transactionally-related to Goldine’s federal claim.

Based on its review of Goldine’s Complaint, it appears that Goldine’s state and common law claims

each concern the same events and transactions that form the basis of Goldine’s copyright infringement

claim. Thus, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over Goldine’s state and common law

claims. 

Case 3:06-cv-01302-MJJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 5
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 2

Case No. C 05-01362, Doc. #22.

4

In sum, the Court finds that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists based on Goldine’s

copyright infringement claim, and the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Goldine’s state

and common law claims. The Court therefore DENIES Kantemirov’s Motion on this basis.

Alternatively, Kantemirov asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because

Goldine “has brought this action previously and this court remanded it to [s]tate [c]ourt.” Kantemirov

also asserts that “there is currently a [s]tate [a]ction with identical claims concerning the same parties.”

As to Kantemirov’s first argument, the Court has reviewed the docket in Kantemirov v. Goldine, Case

No. C 05-01362 HRL. In that matter, which also concerned the business generated from and the rights

to the www.bigwheels.net website, Kantemirov sued Goldine in state court, and Goldine removed the

action to the Northern District based on federal question jurisdiction. Following removal, Kantemirov

counterclaimed against Goldine, including a claim for copyright infringement. Thereafter, Magistrate

Judge Lloyd issued an Order dismissing Kantemirov’s claims for copyright infringement on the ground

that Kantemirov had not yet satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites to sue for copyright infringement

under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Without any basis for subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Lloyd remanded the

action to state court. 

According to Kantemirov, all of the claims that Goldine asserted in his counterclaim in the C

05-01362 action are identical to those he is asserting in this lawsuit. Additionally, Kantemirov argues

that because those claims are currently being litigated in state court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

adjudicate them. Despite these assertions, Kantemirov has failed to include a copy of Goldine’s

counterclaim pending in the state court action. While Goldine’s First Amended Counterclaims filed in

the C 05-01362 matter2

 gives some indication of how Goldine’s counterclaims in the state matter align

with his claims in this case, the Court cannot conclude that Goldine’s counterclaim has not been

amended following remand to state court. Moreover, other than making the conclusory statement that

this lawsuit and the state lawsuit are identical, Kantemirov provides no analysis in support of this

assertion. Further, to the extent that Kantemirov argues that the pending lawsuit in state court divests

this Court of jurisdiction, Kantemirov is mistaken. While claims currently being litigated in state court

may support an argument in favor of abstention by this Court, see Hinman v. Fujitsu Software Corp.,

Case 3:06-cv-01302-MJJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/06 Page 4 of 5
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 3

Nothing in this Order shall be construed as foreclosing Kantemirov from filing a Motion for Abstention.

5

No. C 05-03509, 2006 WL 358073, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006), they do not deprive this Court

of jurisdiction over claims satisfying the criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Accordingly, to the extent that Kantemirov seeks to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction based on the pending state court action, the Court DENIES Kantemirov’s Motion.3

IV. Conclusion

Foe the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Kantemirov’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5).

Further, the Court VACATES the hearing set for June 20, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2006. 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01302-MJJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/06 Page 5 of 5