Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Crystal W Design LLC brought three copyright infringement claims in the Central District of California against Leapfrog Product Development, LLC, Target Corporation, Rebelstork U.S.A., Inc., and Doe defendants. The complaint invoked both the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and the copyright venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). It asserted that each defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the district and that a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred there.
Judge André Birotte Jr. addressed venue on the court's own initiative in an in-chambers order to show cause. No attorneys appeared, and the order did not decide the merits of the infringement claims. The immediate question was whether the complaint's allegations supplied a legally sufficient basis for keeping the copyright action in the Central District of California.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that § 1391(b), the general venue statute, did not control because the complaint alleged only copyright infringement claims. Venue instead was governed by § 1400(a), which permits copyright actions to be brought in the district where the defendant or its agent resides or may be found. The court relied on Supreme Court and district court authority recognizing the copyright-specific statute as the applicable venue rule.
Applying that standard, the court found no factual allegations establishing that each defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the district. It noted that the complaint's allegations concerning incorporation and citizenship instead identified Illinois, Minnesota, Delaware, and possibly North Carolina. The court also rejected the suggestion that alleging where a substantial part of the events occurred would cure the problem, concluding that the complaint's venue allegations did not establish that connection either.
The court therefore ordered Crystal W Design to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for improper venue. Its response must explain why venue is proper based on the facts alleged or suggest a proper transferee venue. The response is due within 14 days of the order's issuance; otherwise, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. The order cited § 1406(a), governing dismissal or transfer of actions filed in the wrong venue, and Ninth Circuit authority permitting a federal court to consider venue sua sponte when the issue has not been waived.
Key Takeaways
- Copyright infringement venue is governed by the specific provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), rather than the general venue rule in § 1391(b).
- The complaint did not factually establish that any defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the Central District of California.
- Allegations about incorporation and citizenship pointed to Illinois, Minnesota, Delaware, and possibly North Carolina, rather than establishing venue in California.
- Crystal W Design must respond within 14 days by defending venue on the alleged facts or suggesting a proper transferee venue.
- Failure to respond will result in dismissal without prejudice for improper venue; the court did not dismiss the action outright in this order.
Why It Matters
The order separates the venue analysis for copyright claims from the familiar general venue framework. A plaintiff cannot rely simply on general language about where substantial events occurred when the copyright-specific statute requires a connection based on where the defendant or its agent resides or may be found.
The ruling is procedural and does not resolve liability or finally dismiss the case. It gives the plaintiff an opportunity to support venue or identify a transferee district, while making clear that an inadequate response will lead to dismissal without prejudice. The court's reliance on sua sponte venue review also shows that the issue may be addressed without a defendant's motion when it has not been waived.