Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT TACOMA
`
`GARY CASTERLOW-BEY,
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05686-RJB
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
`MOTIONS TO DISMISS
`
`GOOGLE.COM INC., and
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Google.Com, Inc.’s (“Google”) Motion
`
`to Dismiss (Dkt. 13) and Defendant Amazon.Com, Inc.’s (“Amazon”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
`
`16). The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motions and the remainder of the
`
`record herein.
`
`This case arises from the alleged sale of Plaintiff’s books on Defendants’ websites. Dkt.
`
`4. Defendants now move for dismissal of the claims asserted against them pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12 (b). Dkts. 13 and 16. For the reasons provided, the motions (Dkt. 13 and 16) should
`
`be granted and the claims dismissed.
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`A. FACTS
`
`I.
`
`FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this case, moved to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis (“IFP”), and provided a proposed complaint asserting that Defendants Amazon and
`
`Google committed copyright infringement when Plaintiff’s books were sold on their website.
`
`Dkts. 1, 1-1, and 4. Defendant Google is an Internet search engine which allows users to search
`
`for online content and receive search results. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d
`
`1146 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant “Amazon is an online retailer that purports to offer ‘Earth's
`
`Biggest Selection of Products.’ Amazon has designed its website to enable millions of unique
`
`products to be sold by both Amazon and third party sellers.” Multi Time Mach., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1231, 194 L. Ed.
`
`2d 185 (2016).
`
`According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and non-party Trafford Publishing Company
`
`(“Trafford”) (Plaintiff has other lawsuits pending against Trafford) entered a contract in which
`
`Trafford would publish and distribute Plaintiff’s books and would then pay Plaintiff the royalties
`
`from the sales. Dkt. 4; Casterlow-Bey v. Trafford Publishing Company, Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5459-RJB; Dkt. 7. Although Plaintiff asserts that he is the
`
`copyright owner of the books (Dkt. 4), he does not allege that he registered any of them with the
`
`United States Copyright Office.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint further maintains that Google and Amazon “both sale all three of
`
`Plaintiff’s published books universally without ever paying any royalty to Plaintiff for his
`
`copyrighted works . . . in Japan, Amsterdam, German [sic] United Kingdom and elsewhere at
`
`ridiculously astronomical prices.” Dkt. 4, at 2. He alleges that he has “no contract with [either
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`company] authorizing universal sales of his copyrighted work.” Id., at 3. Plaintiff makes
`
`reference to copyright infringement. Id. He seeks injunctive relief requiring Google and
`
`Amazon to “cease and desist all sales” of his books until this case is resolved and an order that
`
`they produce all sales records of his books. Id. Plaintiff also seeks several million dollars in
`
`damages. Id.
`
`B. PLAINTIFF’S OTHER CASES RELATED TO HIS BOOKS
`
`On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding IFP, filed a breach of contract case against Trafford,
`
`who he alleges failed to pay him royalties on the three books that he wrote. Casterlow-Bey v.
`
`Trafford Publishing Company, Western District of Washington case number 17-5459-RJB; Dkt.
`
`7. An Answer to the Complaint (Dkt. 28) was filed for Trafford, and the parties are engaging in
`
`discovery (Dkt. 46).
`
`On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a case against Ebay.com, asserting that Ebay.com
`
`committed copyright infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when it sold
`
`Plaintiff’s books. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5687 RJB, Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and several million dollars in damages in
`
`that case. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-5687
`
`RJB, Dkt. 1-1. His application for IFP was granted. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western
`
`District of Washington case number 17-5687 RJB, Dkt. 3. Ebay.com has appeared by counsel
`
`and moved to dismiss the claims asserted against it, in part, based on Plaintiff’s failure to show
`
`that his books are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com,
`
`Western District of Washington case number 17-5687 RJB, Dkt. 7. Ebay.com’s motion to
`
`dismiss was provisionally granted pending Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint, to in part,
`
`address whether Plaintiff had registered his books with the U.S. Copyright Office and to address
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`other issues raised in the motions in that case. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5687 RJB, Dkt. 16.
`
`On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a case against “Barnes and Nobles,” moved for IFP, and
`
`provided a proposed complaint asserting that Defendant “Barnes and Nobles” committed
`
`copyright infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when it sold Plaintiff’s books.
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`
`case number 17-5834, Dkts. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff also makes reference to the Racketeer
`
`Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, (“RICO”). Casterlow-Bey v.
`
`Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5834, Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff seeks several million dollars in damages. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and
`
`Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5834, Dkt. 1-
`
`1. His application for IFP was granted. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District
`
`Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5834, Dkt. 4.
`
`That same day, October 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed another case against Amazon, Google, Ebay,
`
`Trafford, and “Barnes and Nobles,” moved for IFP, and asserted claims under RICO regarding
`
`the sale and distribution of his books. Casterlow-Bey v. Amazon.com, et al., Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5833 RJB, Dkts. 1 and 1-1. His application for IFP was granted.
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Amazon.com, et al., Western District of Washington case number 17-5833
`
`RJB, Dkt. 4.
`
`On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court
`
`for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5871, moved for IFP, and provided a
`
`proposed complaint again asserting that Defendant “Barnes and Nobles” committed copyright
`
`infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when it sold Plaintiff’s books.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`
`case number 17-5871, Dkts. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff again made reference to RICO violations.
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`
`case number 17-5871, Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and several million dollars in
`
`damages. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5871, Dkt. 1-1. His motion for IFP was denied because the case
`
`was duplicative of the other cases he had already filed. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles,
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5871, Dkt. 4. After
`
`being given an opportunity to pay the filing fee if he wished to continue with the case, the case
`
`was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S.
`
`District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5871, Dkt. 5.
`
`C. PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS CASE
`
`
`
`Defendant Google moved to dismiss this case on November 20, 2017, asserting that
`
`Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement should be dismissed because he fails to allege that
`
`any of his books have copyrights registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Dkt. 13. It also
`
`moves to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing how it infringed on his works
`
`or that any activity by Google occurred within the United States. Id. Defendant Amazon moved
`
`to dismiss on November 21, 2017 on the same grounds. Dkt. 16.
`
`The Court issued a notice to Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, regarding Defendants’ motions to
`
`dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b), and discussed Plaintiff’s obligations, if he intended to
`
`oppose the motion. Dkt. 17.
`
`Plaintiff responded on December 12, 2017 and included attachments. Dkt. 23. Plaintiff
`
`argues that “[i]t is undisputed that Defendants have engaged in ‘predicate acts’ that constitute an
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`‘illegal pattern of racketeering activity’ dating back to 2006.” Dkt. 23, at 1-2. He maintains that
`
`“Defendants cannot claim ‘lawful sales’ of Plaintiff’s books because ‘all sales’ by Trafford
`
`Publishing and third party distributors stem from falsified, forged, and fraudulent
`
`contract/document that ultimately initiated national and international conspiracy to illegally
`
`traffic in stolen property for financial gain.” Id., at 3. Plaintiff argues that “Trafford Publishing,
`
`through Defendants, have deprived Plaintiff of his legal earnings, none of the named Defendants
`
`have legal authorization or justification under civil or criminal statutes to manufacture or
`
`distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work.” Id. He asserts that the “exhibits attached to this motion
`
`demonstrate Defendants’ involvement in sales of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted work not only in foreign
`
`countries but all over the United States.” Id. Plaintiff also attaches documents entitled “Sales
`
`and Royalties Page” and “Trafford Publishing Quarterly Royalty Report,” which purport to relate
`
`to sales in the United States. Dkt. 23, at 5-7. Plaintiff also again asserts that he “owns the
`
`copyrights to all (3) books published through Trafford, attached to this motion is a copy of
`
`original contract outlining details of copyright/registration ownership, i.e. ‘Exhibit D’ page 3,
`
`paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7.” Id. Exhibit D is entitled “Trafford Publishing Self-Publishing Services
`
`Agreement.” Dkt. 23, at 8-18. Page three, paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 provide:
`
`5.6 Copyright and Title Registration. If purchased by You as part of Your
`Services, We shall include a copyright notice in accordance with Your
`instructions in each copy of the Work. We shall secure a unique International
`Standard Book Number (ISBN) for each version of the work where applicable.
`You may not use the formatted Manuscript (at any stage of development) or
`finished Work, the ISBN, and/or cover with any other provider of similar Services
`at any time during or after the term of this agreement.
`
`5.7 Rights to Manuscript and the Work. There are generally three sets of
`intellectual property rights that are included in any Work; (a) the first set of rights
`relates to the Manuscript or Your Work. You shall remain the sole and exclusive
`owner of all right, title, and interest in and to Manuscript and Your Work as
`initially submitted to Us. We shall have no right or license to use any Manuscript
`or Work except as permitted herein with respect to development of the resulting
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`book in print, digital, or audio format; (b) the second set of intellectual property
`rights relates to content that We, Our employees, Our Affiliates or Our
`Contractors create as part of the Services that We offer ("Our Work Product");
`and (c) the third set of intellectual property rights relates to the content that We
`own or that We license from third parties that We cannot transfer to You.
`
`
`Dkt. 23, at 10.
`
`Defendants have filed replies (Dkts. 20 and 21), arguing, in part, that they did not get a copy
`
`of the attachments to Plaintiff’s response. The motions are now ripe.
`
`A. MOTION TO DISMISS 12 (b)(1) STANDARD
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A complaint must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.12 (b)(1) if, considering the factual
`
`allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the
`
`Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other
`
`enumerated categories of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or
`
`controversy within the meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any
`
`jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962); D.G. Rung Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Tinnerman, 626 F.Supp. 1062, 1063 (W.D. Wash. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal
`
`question jurisdiction) and 1346 (United States as a defendant). When considering a motion to
`
`dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1), the court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may
`
`review any evidence to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.
`
`McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052
`
`(1989); Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1983). A federal court
`
`is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v.
`
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated
`
`Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, plaintiff bears the burden of proving the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock West, 873 F.2d at 1225; Thornhill Publishing Co.,
`
`Inc. v. Gen’l Tel & Elect. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
`
`B. COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
`
`Under the Copyright Act, “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United
`
`States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been
`
`made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). “A district court does not have subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over an infringement claim until the Copyright Office grants the registration
`
`application and issues a certificate of registration.” Corbis Corp., v. Amazon. com, Inc., 351
`
`F.Supp.2d 1090, 1112, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1182 (W.D.Wash. 2004); Safeair, Inc. v. Airtran Airways,
`
`Inc., 09-5053RJB, 2009 WL 801754, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2009).
`
`Plaintiff does not allege that he has certificates of registration from the Copyright Office on
`
`any of his books in his complaint. A review of the records of the U.S. Copyright Office shows
`
`that only one book, Wildflower, is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to Plaintiff Gary
`
`Casterlow-Bey; with the registration number: TXu001644896; date: 07-31-2009. Pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (b)(2), a “court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
`
`reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
`
`accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The “court may take judicial notice on its own” . . .
`
`but if the “court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still
`
`entitled to be heard.” Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (c)(1) and (e). “Judicial notice is appropriate
`
`for records and reports of administrative bodies.” United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or
`
`Less in Fresno Cty., 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). To the extent that Plaintiff makes a
`
`claim for copyright infringement against Defendants for any book other than Wildflower, the
`
`claim should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b)(1).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`The contractual provisions to which he points do not address whether he has registered the
`
`books with the U.S. Copyright Office. Plaintiff has the burden to establish subject matter
`
`jurisdiction. Stock West, 873 F.2d at 1225. Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement should
`
`be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction regarding any book other than Wildflower.
`
`Moreover, this is the second time Plaintiff has been informed of this burden, and he has again
`
`failed to provide evidence of certificates of registration. Plaintiff cannot simply rely on his own
`
`allegations to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`C. MOTION TO DISMISS 12 (b)(6) STANDARD
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a cognizable
`
`legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
`
`v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken
`
`as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d
`
`1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss does
`
`not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
`
`entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
`
`elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55
`
`(2007) (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
`
`above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
`
`(even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555. The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim
`
`to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 547.
`
`D. COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`Under the Copyright Act, copyright owners have the exclusive right to do or authorize the
`
`following:
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 10 of 13
`
`(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
`(2) to prepare derivative works based upon copyrighted work;
`(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by
`sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
`(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
`pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
`copyrighted work publically;
`(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
`pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
`individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the
`copyrighted work publicly; and
`(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by
`means of a digital audio transmission.
`
`
`
`
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106. “Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct
`
`infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must
`
`demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright
`
`holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement against both Defendants should also be
`
`dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Aside from failing to
`
`establish that he is a copyright holder for any book other than Wildflower, Plaintiff has failed to
`
`allege sufficient facts that either Google or Amazon violated at least one of the rights granted
`
`under § 106. He does not give any details – only non-specific allegations that the Defendants
`
`sold his books. Google properly points out that, as an online service provider, it is shielded from
`
`many infringement claims under the safe harbor protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright
`
`Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c)-(d), but is unable to glean even the most basic of facts from
`
`Plaintiff’s complaint to know which, if any, of the DMCA’s provisions apply. Dkt. 13. Further,
`
`“[i]t is well settled that the Copyright Act does not apply extraterritorially.” Los Angeles News
`
`Serv. C. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendants
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`properly point out that Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts copyright violations outside the United
`
`States. His claims should also be dismissed for failure to state a claim on this basis as well.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff asserts claims for secondary copyright infringement liability, his
`
`claims should be dismissed.
`
`To succeed in imposing vicarious liability for copyright infringement, “a plaintiff must
`
`establish that the defendant exercises the requisite control over the direct infringer and that the
`
`defendant derives a direct financial benefit from the direct infringement.” Perfect 10, Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007). “The ‘control’ element of the vicarious
`
`liability test as the defendant's right and ability to supervise the direct infringer. Id. (internal
`
`citations omitted).
`
`Plaintiff fails to allege claims supporting a claim for vicarious liability because he does not
`
`allege Defendants had the right to control the alleged infringing activity or derived a direct
`
`financial benefit from the direct infringement. See Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1082, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
`
`Plaintiff has failed to assert facts supporting a claim for contributory liability for copyright
`
`infringement because he failed to allege infringement by a third party, or that Defendants
`
`intentionally encouraged or induced infringement through “specific acts.” Perfect 10, Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007).
`
`E. OTHER CLAIMS MENTIONED IN RESPONSE
`
`Plaintiff appears to attempt to assert other claims in his response, including a reference to
`
`fraud and “racketeering.” These claims are not in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff has asserted
`
`these claims in another case against these Defendants. Casterlow-Bey v. Amazon, et al, Western
`
`District of Washington case number 17-5833-RJB; Dkt. 5.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`F. LEAVE TO AMEND
`
`Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is
`
`entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal
`
`of the action. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995).
`
`It is not absolutely clear that no amendment could cure the defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint as
`
`to the remaining claims. Although his success seems unlikely, Plaintiff should be afforded an
`
`opportunity to amend his complaint in order to attempt to state a claim on his copyright
`
`infringement claim. He should not rely solely on allegations that the Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over his copyright infringement claims (that the books are registered with the U.S.
`
`Copyright Office), but should provide evidence of that registration, if any exists. Such
`
`amendment, if any, should be filed on or before January 12, 2018. Plaintiff’s failure to do so
`
`may result in dismissal of the case. Plaintiff should not add additional claims or parties.
`
`G. CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants’ motions should be granted and all Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed, unless
`
`Plaintiff files an appropriate amended complaint. Plaintiff should be given until January 12,
`
`2018 to file an amended complaint, if he chooses to do so. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result
`
`in dismissal of the case.
`
`It is ORDERED that:
`
`III. ORDER
`
` Defendant Google.Com, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13) WILL BE
`
`GRANTED, unless Plaintiff files a properly amended complaint, if any, is filed
`
`by January 12, 2018; failure to file will result in dismissal of the case.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05686-RJB Document 25 Filed 12/29/17 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
` Defendant Amazon.Com, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) WILL BE
`
`GRANTED, unless Plaintiff files a properly amended complaint, if any, is filed
`
`by January 12, 2018; failure to file will result in dismissal of the case
`
` The Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 13 and 16) are RENOTED to January 12, 2018.
`
`The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party
`
`appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
`
`Dated this 29th day of December, 2017.
`
` A
`ROBERT J. BRYAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Judge
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS- 13
`
`