From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New Sensations, Inc. v. Does

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 1, 2011
No. C 11-2770 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 11-2770 MEJ Docket No. 22

11-01-2011

NEW SENSATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-1,474, Defendants.


ORDER RE DOE DEFENDANT #37's MOTION TO DISMISS

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit against 1,474 Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to Plaintiffs exclusive license, ("Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody"), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas on Does 1-1,474's Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). Id.

Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Doe Defendant #37 (I.P. Address 108.34.138.72). Dkt. No. 22. In his motion, Doe #37 requests that the subpoena be quashed as to him and the case against him dismissed because he does not reside, work, or conduct business in California; has not contracted to supply services in California; the IP address that is identified as assigned to him is not within the jurisdiction of this Court; he has no real property in California; he does not consent to personal jurisdiction in California; he has no business or personal contacts in California; and he has no significant relationship with California. Id. at 3.

Based on this information, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Doe Defendant #37. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to either: (1) file a voluntary dismissal of Doe Defendant #37, without prejudice to filing a complaint against him in the proper jurisdiction; or (2) show cause why the Court should not grant Doe Defendant #37's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall file its response by November 14, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Maria-Elena James

Chief United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

New Sensations, Inc. v. Does

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 1, 2011
No. C 11-2770 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

New Sensations, Inc. v. Does

Case Details

Full title:NEW SENSATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-1,474, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

No. C 11-2770 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)