Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc.

N.D. California

Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc.

DecidedMarch 3, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-02505

StatusUnknown

This text of Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc. (Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL VELGOS, ) Case No. CV 25-0186 FMO (ASx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: VENUE NEXENTA BY DDN, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 1, 2025, plaintiff Paul Velgos (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging violations of 18] the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106. (See Dkt. 1, Compl. at 9] 30-64). On February 23, 2025, 19 plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 23, “FAC” at J 30-64). 20 With respect to venue, claims of copyright infringement “may be brought in the judicial 21| district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). The Ninth Circuit has 23] interpreted “this provision to allow venue in any judicial district where, if treated as a separate 24] state, the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction.” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated by Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem 26 | Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). 27 28

1 Although plaintiff contends that venue is proper in this District, (see Dkt. 23, Complaint at 10), he does not allege any facts showing that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). 3]|| (See, generally, id.). 4 Based on the foregoing, IT |S ORDERED THAT: 1. No later than March 10, 2025, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be transferred for lack of proper venue. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by 7| the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to transfer of the instant action 8] to the appropriate venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (providing that a federal court may transfer 9|| acomplaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 10] (D.C. Cir. 1974); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1986) (a district court may raise the issue of venue sua sponte). 12 2. If plaintiff wishes to transfer venue, plaintiff shall file a motion to transfer venue by the deadline set forth above. Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025. 15 16 remands Ogu 47 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL VELGOS, ) Case No. CV 25-0186 FMO (ASx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: VENUE NEXENTA BY DDN, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 1, 2025, plaintiff Paul Velgos (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging violations of 18] the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106. (See Dkt. 1, Compl. at 9] 30-64). On February 23, 2025, 19 plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 23, “FAC” at J 30-64). 20 With respect to venue, claims of copyright infringement “may be brought in the judicial 21| district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). The Ninth Circuit has 23] interpreted “this provision to allow venue in any judicial district where, if treated as a separate 24] state, the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction.” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated by Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem 26 | Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). 27 28

1 Although plaintiff contends that venue is proper in this District, (see Dkt. 23, Complaint at 10), he does not allege any facts showing that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). 3]|| (See, generally, id.). 4 Based on the foregoing, IT |S ORDERED THAT: 1. No later than March 10, 2025, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be transferred for lack of proper venue. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by 7| the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to transfer of the instant action 8] to the appropriate venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (providing that a federal court may transfer 9|| acomplaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 10] (D.C. Cir. 1974); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1986) (a district court may raise the issue of venue sua sponte). 12 2. If plaintiff wishes to transfer venue, plaintiff shall file a motion to transfer venue by the deadline set forth above. Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025. 15 16 remands Ogu 47 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul Velgos v. Nexenta by DDN, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-velgos-v-nexenta-by-ddn-inc-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack