Case 2:12-cv-00014-MWF-JEM Document 80 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1729
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 3, 2013
`Case No. CV-12-00014 MWF (JEMx)
`Title:
`KTS Karaoke, Inc. et al. v. Sony ATV Music Publishing LLC, et al.
`
`Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER-
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS [71]
`
` Rita Sanchez
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
` Not Reported
`Court Reporter/Recorder
`
`
`
` N/A
` Tape No.
`
`
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Not Present
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ Motion to
`
`Dismiss Unsubstantiated Claims (“Motion”). (Docket No. 71). The Court finds
`the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. See
`Fed. R. Civ. P 78(b) and Local Rule 7-15 (the Court may dispense with oral
`argument on any matter unless otherwise required). The matter is therefore
`removed from the Court’s January 7, 2013, calendar. Having considered the
`parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ Motion.
`
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants KTS Karaoke, Inc. and Timmy Sun Tom
`(“KTS”) move to dismiss claims in Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs’ (“Sony/ATV”)
`First Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because
`Sony/ATV has not identified copyright registration numbers for certain works and
`because Sony/ATV has not proven ownership of the copyright registrations it has
`identified. However, neither ground is a proper basis for the Rule 12(b)(1) Motion.
`
`With regard to the works for which Sony/ATV has not identified copyright
`registration numbers, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over intellectual
`property disputes involving unregistered works. See, e.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
`Muchnick, -- U.S. --, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2012) (“[N]either §1331,
`which confers subject-matter jurisdiction over questions of federal law, nor
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00014-MWF-JEM Document 80 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1730
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 3, 2013
`Case No. CV-12-00014 MWF (JEMx)
`Title:
`KTS Karaoke, Inc. et al. v. Sony ATV Music Publishing LLC, et al.
`§1338(a), which is specific to copyright claims, conditions its jurisdictional grant
`on whether copyright holders have registered their works before suing for
`infringement.”). Accordingly, registration is not a jurisdictional requirement and
`subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court’s recent
`orders as to discovery and identification of the works at issue cannot be construed
`as jurisdictional, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an
`inappropriate mechanism for addressing a purported deficiency in compliance.
`
`The Motion also fails with regard to proof of ownership. KTS has no basis
`for its claim that “[t]he Sony/ATV parties were ordered to prove their copyright
`ownership as part of their initial disclosures.” (Docket No. 76 at ¶6). KTS cites no
`order of this Court requiring such proof and no legal authority to suggest that such
`proof should be required at this early juncture. And, even if the Court had ordered
`the production of “chain of title” evidence, failure to comply with that order would
`not divest the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court also
`already ruled that the pleadings sufficiently allege ownership interests in exclusive
`rights protected by the Copyright Act. (Docket No. 49 at 2). Whether Sony/ATV
`can prove infringement may indeed hinge in part on whether it can prove
`ownership interests in the works, but that question of proof is not one for a Rule 12
`motion.
`
`It appears that Sony/ATV is attempting to comply in good faith with the
`Court’s orders regarding discovery in this far-reaching, factually complicated
`matter. The concerns underlying KTS’s Motion should be addressed during the
`course of discovery and ameliorated by the parties’ cooperation and compliance
`with their continuing obligations under Rule 26.
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`___: N/A
`Initials of Preparer RS
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 2
`
`