`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
` Civ. No. 22-2000 (JWB/DTS)
`
` ORDER ON
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kris Lindahl Real Estate, LLC; and
`Lindahl Realty, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RE/MAX Escarpment Golfi Realty Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Bennett Ewald, Esq., Lee B. Bennin, Esq., Loren L. Hansen, Esq., Lathrop
`GPM LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs.
`
`Amanda Groover Hyland, Esq., Falkner Nelson Werkhaven, Esq., Taylor English Duma
`LLP; Elisabeth Muirhead, Esq., Paige S. Stradley, Esq., Merchant & Gould P.C., counsel
`for Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Kris Lindahl Real Estate, LLC and Lindahl Realty, LLC (referred
`
`together as “Lindahl”) sued Defendant RE/MAX Escarpment Golfi Realty, Inc. (“Golfi”)
`
`for breach of contract and willful infringement of Lindahl’s copyrights. Golfi filed a
`
`Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7), which was heard on March 13, 2023. (Doc. No. 24.)
`
`“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility
`
`when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
`
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Where a complaint
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-02000-JWB-DTS Doc. 25 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line
`
`between possibility and plausibility,” and must be dismissed. Id. (quotations omitted).
`
`As stated on the record at the hearing, Golfi’s motion to dismiss is granted. One of
`
`Lindahl’s asserted claims is for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. The
`
`Copyright Act does not have extraterritorial reach beyond the United States. Fair Isaac
`
`Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-1054 (WMW/DTS), 2021 WL 1111052, *5 (D. Minn.
`
`Mar. 23, 2021) (citing Iverson v. Grant, 133 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table
`
`decision)). Courts have “described domestic infringement as a necessary element of a
`
`Copyright Act claim,” which must be supported by allegations pleaded in the Complaint.
`
`IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited, 334 F. Supp. 3d 95, 120 (Dist. D.C. 2018) (stating it
`
`was plaintiff’s “obligation to plead specific facts that support a plausible inference of
`
`domestic infringement”); see also State Street Global Advisors Trust Co. v. Visbal, 431 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 322, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (stating that “courts considering the publication of
`
`images copyrighted in the United States on the internet abroad have required some
`
`additional link between the foreign publication on the internet and the United States” and
`
`finding that the plaintiff had not alleged such a link). Because Lindahl’s Complaint
`
`includes no allegations that any act of copyright infringement occurred in the United
`
`States, Golfi’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim is granted.
`
`With the copyright infringement claim dismissed, the only claim remaining is the
`
`breach-of-contract claim (Count I). The Court declines to exercise supplemental
`
`jurisdiction over this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating a federal court may
`
`decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-02000-JWB-DTS Doc. 25 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`over which it has original jurisdiction”); Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3d 880, 888
`
`(8th Cir. 2005) (stating that in the usual case where all federal claims have been
`
`dismissed before trial, the balance of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
`
`comity” point toward declining to accept jurisdiction over the state-law claims).
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant RE/MAX Escarpment Golfi Realty,
`
`Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement
`
`claim (Count II) is dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to exercise
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim (Count I), and therefore, the
`
`Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
`
` LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
`
`
`Dated: March 15, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
`JERRY W. BLACKWELL
`United States District Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
