Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Crystal W Design LLC sued Leapfrog Product Development, LLC, Target Corporation, Rebelstork U.S.A., Inc., and ten Doe defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting three claims for copyright infringement. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that venue was proper under both the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and the copyright-specific venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), because each defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
On October 21, 2026, District Judge André Birotte Jr. issued an in-chambers order to show cause, questioning whether venue actually lies in the Central District of California. The order was entered without any party appearing, and it directed the plaintiff to justify its choice of forum or face dismissal without prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that because the plaintiff alleges only copyright infringement claims, venue is governed exclusively by the copyright-specific venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), not the general venue statute, § 1391(b). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc. and district court precedent, the court explained that § 1400(a) permits a copyright suit only in a district where the defendant or its agent resides or may be found.
Applying that standard, the court found the complaint deficient. It observed that the complaint contains no factual allegations establishing that each defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the district, and that the allegations about the defendants' places of incorporation and citizenship instead point to Illinois, Minnesota, Delaware, and possibly North Carolina. The court also noted that the complaint's venue allegations did not establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
The court therefore ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for improper venue, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Costlow v. Weeks for the court's authority to raise venue sua sponte. The plaintiff must file a response within 14 days explaining why venue is proper on the facts alleged or suggesting a proper transferee court; otherwise, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue.
Key Takeaways
- Copyright infringement venue is governed by the specific statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), not the general venue statute § 1391(b), so a plaintiff cannot rely on general venue rules to justify its forum choice.
- A complaint that identifies defendants' citizenship and incorporation in other states, without alleging that any defendant or its agent resides or may be found in the chosen district, is vulnerable to a sua sponte venue challenge.
- Federal courts may raise improper venue on their own motion even if no defendant has objected, and may dismiss or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
- The plaintiff here was given 14 days to justify venue or propose a transferee district, and faces dismissal without prejudice if it does not respond adequately.
Why It Matters
This order is a practical reminder that copyright plaintiffs must plead venue facts with specificity under the copyright-specific venue statute, and that conclusory allegations tracking the statute's language may not survive judicial scrutiny. It also illustrates that courts will police venue sua sponte at the outset of a case, before defendants even appear.
For litigants in the Central District of California, the decision underscores that naming defendants incorporated or based elsewhere, without more, invites an order to show cause and a potential dismissal or transfer that can delay the merits of an infringement dispute.