Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Fall 2010 open memo assignment no doubt v. activision right of publicity california order to show cause subject matter jurisdiction
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Fall 2010 open memo assignment no doubt v. activision right of publicity california order to show cause subject matter jurisdiction

120
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
120
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Case 2:09-cv-08872-SVW-VBK Document 10 Filed 12/22/09 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 09-8872 SVW (VBKx) Date December 22, 2009 Title No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On December 3, 2009, Defendant Activision Publishing, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a Notice ofRemoval, bringing this case to federal court. On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff No Doubt("Plaintiff" or "No Doubt") only alleges state law claims against Defendant: (1) fraudulent inducement;(2) violation of the rights of publicity under common law and California Civil Code § 3344; (3) breachof contract; (4) unfair business practices; (5) injunctive relief; and (6) rescission. Defendant contends,however, that Plaintiffs action is preempted by the Copyright Act. Federal courts have exclusivejurisdiction over copyright claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); however, the issue is whether PlaintiffsComplaint, in substance, alleges a claim covered by the Copyright Act. This Court has an affirmative obligation to consider subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte inevery case, whether the issue is raised by the parties or not. Spencer Enters Inc. v. United States, 345F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court feels that further briefing from both parties regarding the issueof whether Plaintiffs action is preempted by the Copyright Act would assist the Court in making thisdetermination. Thus, the Court orders each party to file simultaneous briefs, in accordance with thefollowing schedule: Opening Briefs, no greater than 20 pages in length: January 11, 2010 Opposing Briefs, no greater than 12 pages in length: January 19, 2010 Each party should use the opposing briefs to respond to arguments made by the other party, notto raise additional arguments. No reply briefs are necessary. : Initials of Preparer PMCCV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1