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
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00067-DAD-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`YELLOWCAKE, INC.,
`
`No. 1:20-cv-00067-DAD-EPG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ALBERTO MITCHELL, et al.,
`
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
`REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION IS
`APPROPRIATE
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 12, 2019, plaintiff Yellowcake, Inc. (“Yellowcake”) commenced this action
`
`against various defendants in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On January
`
`13, 2020, defendants removed the action to this federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) The notice of
`
`removal states that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1338 and 1545, both of which confer jurisdiction to a district court over an action asserting
`
`claims for relief “arising under any Act of Congress relating to . . . copyrights.” (See also Doc.
`
`No. 1 at 2.) Although Yellowcake’s complaint does reference copyrighted works, it is not clear to
`
`the court that Yellowcake is asserting claims for relief that arise under an act of Congress relating
`
`to copyrights. Accordingly, defendants must provide additional information for the court to be
`
`able to determine whether the claims asserted in Yellowcake’s complaint arise under an act of
`
`Congress relating to copyrights.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00067-DAD-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
`
`Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “A suit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1441(a) only if it could have been brought there originally.” Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec.,
`
`Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987). A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”
`
`United Invs. Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).
`
`“The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the [copyright]
`
`laws, but not of all questions in which a [copyright] may be the subject-matter of the controversy.
`
`For courts of a state may try questions of title, and may construe and enforce contracts relating to
`
`10
`
`[copyrights].” T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 826 (2d Cir. 1964); see also JustMed,
`
`11
`
`Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This court has adopted the Second Circuit's
`
`12
`
`test in T.B. Harms.”). “An action ‘arises under’ the Copyright Act if and only if the complaint is
`
`13
`
`for a remedy expressly granted by the Act, e.g., a suit for infringement or for the statutory
`
`14
`
`royalties for record reproduction, 17 U.S.C. § 101, or asserts a claim requiring construction of the
`
`15
`
`Act . . . or, at the very least and perhaps more doubtfully, presents a case where a distinctive
`
`16
`
`policy of the Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim.” JustMed,
`
`17
`
`Inc., 600 F.3d at 1123–24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In summary, the T.B.
`
`18
`
`Harms test requires the district court to exercise jurisdiction if: (1) the complaint asks for a
`
`19
`
`remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act; (2) the complaint requires an interpretation of the
`
`20
`
`Copyright Act; or (3) federal principles should control the claims.” (Id. at 1124) (internal
`
`21
`
`quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`22
`
`In their removal papers, defendants assert that this court has jurisdiction over this action
`
`23
`
`because Yellowcake “asserts claims for relief relating to copyrights” (Doc. No. 1 at 2), but “[t]he
`
`24
`
`mere fact that an action involves a copyright ‘does not satisfy federal jurisdiction requirements.’”
`
`25
`
`Beach Front Villas, LLC v. Rogers, No. CV 18-00457 LEK-RLP, 2019 WL 1223305, at *5 (D.
`
`26
`
`Haw. Mar. 15, 2019) (quoting Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th
`
`27
`
`Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, defendants are hereby directed to show cause in writing within
`
`28
`
`fourteen (14) days of service of this order why removal of this action is appropriate in light of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00067-DAD-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`standards articulated above. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The
`
`‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden
`
`of establishing that removal is proper.”). Should Yellowcake wish to express its position on this
`
`question, it may file a response within seven (7) days of defendants filing their response to this
`
`order to show cause.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
` Dated: January 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`