Pisciotti v. Brittingham

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 FRANK PISCIOTTI, CASE NO. 20-CV-05924-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. CLARIFICATION 13 ROBERTA BRITTINGHAM, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Frank Pisciotti’s Motion for Clarification on Summary 17 Judgment Order. Dkt. No. 67. He asks the Court “to clarify that its Order applies only to 18 Defendant’s actions of infringement that were the subject matter of this case,” and to further 19 specify that “the [O]rder does not affect Plaintiff’s remedies for any acts of infringement that occur 20 after July 1, 2022.” Id. at 1. The Court declines to do so, as its Order speaks for itself. See, e.g., 21 Dkt. No. 65 at 2 (“Pisciotti’s ownership claim and—by extension—any infringement claims are 22 . . . time-barred.”) (citing Seven Arts Filmed Ent. Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251, 23 1258 (9th Cir. 2013)); see also id. at 28. Pisciotti’s motion is accordingly denied. See 24 O’Donnell/Salvatori Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. C20-882-MLP, 2021 WL 4948188, at *1 (W.D. 1 Wash. Oct. 22, 2021) (denying motion for clarification where “[t]here was no ambiguity in the 2 Court’s ruling”). 3 Dated this 6th day of September, 2022. 4 A

5 Lauren King United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23