Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Joint Case Management Conference Statement - Document 19

Joint Case Management Conference Statement - Document 19

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,811|Likes:
Published by copyrightclerk
AF HOLDINGS LLC
v
JOE NAVASCA

3:12-cv-02396

N.D. Cal.
AF HOLDINGS LLC
v
JOE NAVASCA

3:12-cv-02396

N.D. Cal.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: copyrightclerk on Nov 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)Of Counsel for Prenda Law Inc.38 Miller Avenue, #263Mill Valley, CA 94941415-325-5900blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com 
 Attorney for Plaintif
 
Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law371 Dogwood WayBoulder Creek, CA 95006(831) 703-4011nick@ranallolawoffice.com
 Attorney for Defendant 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAAF HOLDINGS LLC, )
No. 3:12-CV-02396-EMC
))Plaintiff, )
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
)
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 v. )
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
 )) Date: November 30, 2012JOE NAVASCA, ) Time: 9:00 AM) Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen) Courtroom: Five 17
th
Floor
 
Defendant. ) File Date: May 10, 2012) Trial Date: None Set____________________________________)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC and Joe Navasca submit this Joint Case Management ConferenceStatement pursuant to the United States District Judge Edward M. Chen’s Civil Standing Order –General (ECF No. 3), and Northern District of California Civil Local Rule (hereinafter “L.R.”) 16-9(a).
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document19 Filed11/23/12 Page1 of 14
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
2JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT No.
 
3:12-CV-02396-EMC
1. Jurisdiction and Service
The basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and defendant’scounterclaims, whether any issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, whether any parties remain to be served, and, if any parties remain to be served, a proposed deadline for service.
AF Holdings LLC: Per L.R. 3-5, and as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1 ¶ 5), thisCourt has federal subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C.§§ 101,
et seq.
, (commonly referred to as “the Copyright Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting federalcourts federal question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the laws of the United States),and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (granting federal courts original jurisdiction over any Congressional actsrelating to copyrights). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy claimunder 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it is directly related to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim,which is within this Court’s original jurisdiction, such that the two claims form part of the same caseand controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.This Court has personal jurisdiction over Joe Navasca because, upon credible informationand belief gathered by Plaintiff, Joe Navasca resides or committed copyright infringement in theState of California. Plaintiff used geolocation technology to trace the IP address used by Joe Navascato a point of origin within the State of California. Thus, there are no actual or potential personal jurisdiction issues in this case.Joe Navasca:Mr. Navasca has not yet filed an answer or motion to dismiss (though he will on or beforeNovember 29, 2012). Nonetheless, without waiving any objections to jurisdiction, Mr. Navascabelieves that personal jurisdiction over him is likely appropriate, based on Mr. Navasca’s residencewithin the district. AF Holdings claims that this court has supplemental jurisdiction over “civilconspiracy” claims, though no such claim has been included in the Amended Complaint against Mr.Navasca.Mr. Navasca agrees that this court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over copyrightinfringement claims. Nonetheless, Mr. Navasca contests AF Holdings standing to bring the instant
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document19 Filed11/23/12 Page2 of 14
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
3JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT No.
 
3:12-CV-02396-EMC
action. As Plaintiff’s lack of standing may implicate the appropriateness of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case, Mr. Navasca is presently unwilling to concede that subject matter jurisdiction is strictly appropriate.
2. Facts
 A brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues in dispute.
AF Holdings LLC: Plaintiff is an organization that holds the copyrights to the adultentertainment content titled, “Popular Demand” (hereinafter “Video”). Joe Navasca is the allegedcopyright infringer. Joe Navasca, without authorization, used an online Peer-to-Peer mediadistribution system (specifically, the BitTorrent protocol) to download Plaintiff’s copyrighted worksand distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted works to the public, including making Plaintiff’s copyrightedworks available for distribution to others. Joe Navasca operated under the cover of a network addresswhen he/she joined a common swarm composed of fellow infringers, who downloaded the sameexact file and unlawfully distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted works amongst one another.Joe Navasca:Mr. Navasca’s Answer/Rule 12 Motion is due on November 29, 2012. In the event that Mr.Navasca chooses to file an answer, Defendant will admit or deny the specific allegations againsthim. For purposes of the instant filing, let it suffice to say that Defendant denies the allegations of copyright infringement. Mr. Navasca likewise contests Plaintiff’s characterization of the facts. Mr.Navasca denies that he has uploaded, downloaded, or otherwise shared the subject video viaBitTorrent. Mr. Navasca is not the ISP subscriber identified in connection with Plaintiff’s priorsubpoena in this case, and has no idea how he was chosen as the defendant in the instant case. Asnoted above, Mr. Navasca also contests that AF Holdings has received sufficient rights under 17U.S.C. §106 to confer standing in the instant case.
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document19 Filed11/23/12 Page3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->