Case Details

CourtCentral District of California
Docket number2:12-cv-04650
Date case filed2012-05-29
Date case closed2013-01-28
Date of latest filing2013-01-28
Assigned to
Case cause17:501 Copyright Infringement
Nature of suitCopyright
Jury demand
Demand
Jurisdiction

Case Parties

None listed

Case Docket

Docket
Item
Date FiledDocument
Available
Short
Description
Long Description
12012-05-29 Complaint - (Discovery)COMPLAINT against Defendant John Does 1 through 10. Case assigned to Judge Gary A. Feess for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. [Summons not issued on 5/29/2012.] (et) (mg).
22012-05-29 Certificate/Notice of Interested PartiesCERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. (et) (mg).
32012-05-29 Report on Filing of Copyright Action (Initial Notification)REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by Malibu Media LLC. (et)
42012-05-29 Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8)NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et)
52012-06-04 Ex Parte Applicaton for Leave re Discovery re DiscoveryEX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Tobias Fieser, # (2) Exhibit A, # (3) Exhibit B, # (4) Declaration of Leemore Kushner, # (5) Proposed Order)(Kushner, Leemore)
62012-06-14 Order on Ex Parte Application for Leave re Discovery MatterORDER Re: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (Document No. [5]) is granted to the extent. (See document for further details). (mr)
72012-07-10 Transferring Case purs GO 08-05 (Related Case (CV 34)ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 -Related Case- filed. Related Case No: CV 12-01642 RGK(SSx). Case transferred from Judge Gary A. Feess and Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin to Judge R. Gary Klausner and Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 12-04650 RGK(SSx).Signed by Judge R. Gary Klausner (rn)
82012-07-10 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTE IN CHAMBERS CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERby Judge R. Gary Klausner:In light of the recent transfer of the above titled cases to this Court, the Court makes thefollowing Case Management Order. Any order allowing for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference is hereby vacated until the Court addresses jurisdictional concerns associated with these cases. Further all hearing dates issued by other Courts are also vacated. All pending motions and ex parte applications are moot. Further, the parties are hereby ordered to show cause in writing of no more than five pages by Monday July 23, 2012 as to why these cases should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff need only file a single response in case 2:12-cv-01642 unless it believes that there are separate arguments and evidence relevant for individual cases. (shb)
92012-07-24 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER Request for Further Briefing, Case ManagementOrder, and Motion for Sanction in 2:12-cv-03614 (DE 10) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: There are two categories of Defendants in these related cases: Defendants who are currently unrepresented and Defendants who are represented by The Pietz Law Firm. The Court will discuss the pending issues as to each group of Defendants separately. First, as to the unrepresented Defendants, the Court requests further briefing from the Plaintiff as to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff responded to the Courts Order to Show Cause by submitting information about the accuracy of its IP address tracking in other federal cases. However, this data is unreliable as Plaintiff has not presented the Court with information about how it selected the defendants in those cases or the methods it used to track their location. Further, the success of Plaintiffs methods in other cases is not necessarily indicative of the likelihood that this Court has personal jurisdiction over of the present unrepresented Defendants. Plaintiff is to submit further briefing, of no more than ten pages by Friday, July 27, 2012 addressing the geo locating tools or other relevant technology it has used in the present cases to identify the location of the IP addresses belonging to the unrepresented Defendants and the accuracy and reliability of such technology. The Court will not take further steps as to these unrepresented Defendants until it has resolved the issue of personal jurisdiction. Second, as to the represented Defendants, these Defendants have waived any objections to personal jurisdiction. (See Brief re: Jurisdiction and Sanctions for Related Case Rule Violations, 1: 6-10.) Further, John Doe Number 5 in 2:12-cv-03614 requests that the Court consider its previously filed Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff has opposed that Motion and Defendant makes reply arguments in its response to the Order to Show Cause. Therefore, that Motion is deemed submitted. Upon full consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted in that case, the Court finds insufficient good cause to impose sanctions and hereby denies the Motion for Sanctions at Docket Entry 10 in 2:12-cv-03614. Because this Courts July 10, 2012 Case Management Order vacated any subpoenas that had previously been issued, Plaintiff may only proceed with discovery as to the represented Defendants upon further motion to the Court. (shb)
102012-07-31 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner Discharging Court's 7/10/2012 Order to Show Cause [8]. (vdr)
112012-08-15 Motion for LeaveNOTICE OF MOTION AND Second MOTION for Leave to to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. Motion set for hearing on 9/17/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Kushner, Leemore)
122012-09-12 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: re: Second MOTION for Leave to to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference Second MOTION for Leave to to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference [11]. The above-referenced motion, noticed for hearing on September 17, 2012, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. (rne)
132012-10-10 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court ORDERS as follows:1. Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference is DENIED. (CV 12-01642, DE 28.) 2. Plaintiffs claims in the above-listed cases are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against all Defendants other than the individual designated as John Doe 1 in each action.3. Defendant John Doe No. 5s Motion to Sever All Does Other than John Doe 1 isDENIED as moot. (CV 12-03614-RGK, DE 32.) (shb)
142013-01-17 Order to Show CauseORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Why Remaining Defendants Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(m) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/24/2013. (rne)
152013-01-24 Response (non-motion)RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLCto Order to Show Cause[14] (Kushner, Leemore)
162013-01-28 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding heldMINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaints forFailure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) On January 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show as to why John Doe Defendants in the present cases should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 4(m) [14]. On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a timely response [15] and thus, the Jan. 17 Order to Show Cause is discharged. In the present cases, Plaintiff's deadlines for service of the summons and complaints expired between June to September 2012. In its response to the Court's Jan. 17 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for its failure to comply with Rule 4(m). Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaints IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge R. Gary Klausner (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ir)
172013-01-28 Report of Determination of Copyright Action (CLOSE)(AO 121)REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION Regarding a Copyright. (Closing) (ir)