Sergeevich v. Denisovich

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01331
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ARTEM BERESNEV SERGEEVICH, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01331-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 9 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION v. 10 NEKRASOV ROSTISLAV DENISOVICH, 11

Defendant. 12 13

14 Before the Court is non-represented Plaintiff Artem Beresnev Sergeevich’s complaint. 15 Dkt. # 4. In the complaint, Plaintiff maintains that he is the “rightful holder of intellectual rights 16 of ‘DayZone Content 01’ of [the] Russian federation” and that Defendant Nekrasov Rostislav 17 Denisovich violated those rights when he downloaded and then “re-uploaded and used this 18 content . . . on Valve Software’s ‘Steam Workshop[.]’” Id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that the 19 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction under “Clause 8 20 Intellectual Property.” Id. at 3–4. 21 The party invoking jurisdiction must allege facts that establish the Court’s subject matter 22 jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Federal courts have 23 “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 24 1 United States. 28 U.S.C § 1331. A plaintiff must allege federal question jurisdiction “on the 2 face of the complaint.” City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 The Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction in two situations. Provincial Gov't

4 of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the Court has 5 jurisdiction if a federal right or immunity is “‘an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s 6 cause of action.’” Id. (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation 7 Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 11 (1983)). And second, “if a state-law claim ‘necessarily 8 raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may 9 entertain without disturbing any congressionally-approved balance of federal and state judicial 10 responsibilities.’” Id. (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 11 U.S. 308, 314 (2005)). If a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction at 12 any time during a dispute, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United

13 States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987). 14 Here, Plaintiff appears to reference the “Intellectual Property Clause” of the U.S. 15 Constitution as the basis for federal question jurisdiction, which grants Congress the power to 16 “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and 17 inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, 18 cl. 8. Although Plaintiff begins to describe what may be generously construed as a cause of 19 action arising under intellectual property infringement—seemingly involving the misuse of his 20 intellectual property—it is unclear from the face of the complaint what “DayZone Content 01” 21 is, what type of intellectual property rights Plaintiff possesses over it, and what type of 22 infringement Defendant is alleged to have committed. Even construing Plaintiff’s complaint

23 liberally given his non-represented status, his claim is so lacking in detail that it cannot properly 24 form a basis for federal question jurisdiction as pleaded. l For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not 2 || be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the 3 information within fourteen (14) days of this order, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. 4 Dated this 26th day of September, 2023. 5 CJok 4. Chur 6 John H.Chun United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24