Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation

N.D. California

Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation

DecidedJanuary 9, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-07465

StatusUnknown

This text of Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation (Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation) 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

Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 TRICIA TAMKIN, CASE NO. 19-cv-07465-YGR

7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; 8 vs. DISMISSING STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT CLAIM 9 ZOHO CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 7 10 Defendant.

11 On November 21, 2019, plaintiff Tricia Tamkin filed a motion to remand this case back to 12 the California Superior Court, County of Alameda. (Dkt. No. 7.) Defendant Zoho Corporation 13 filed an opposition thereto, after which plaintiff filed a reply brief. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 21.) 14 In addition, on November 25, 2019, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff filed an opposition 16 thereto, after which defendant filed a reply brief. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 23.) 17 Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for 18 the reasons set forth on the record on January 7, 2020, the Court orders as follows: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s common law copyright cause of action is preempted by the Copyright Act, 20 17 U.S.C. section 301(a). Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th 21 Cir. 2001); Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 Thus, this state law claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1 23 (2) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining 24 claims. Acri v. Varian Associates 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court 25

26 1 Insofar as the preempted claim may be recharacterized as a federal claim, Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2018), plaintiff has conceded that she cannot 27 maintain such a claim at this juncture given her failure to register the copyright at issue. Reed 1 therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the Court 2 GRANTS plaintiff’ s motion to remand this action to the California Superior Court, 3 County of Alameda. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the case and close the 4 file. 5 This Order terminates Docket Number 7. 6 IT Is SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 9, 2020 - -—— as 4 “Se □ 9 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12

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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 TRICIA TAMKIN, CASE NO. 19-cv-07465-YGR

7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; 8 vs. DISMISSING STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT CLAIM 9 ZOHO CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 7 10 Defendant.

11 On November 21, 2019, plaintiff Tricia Tamkin filed a motion to remand this case back to 12 the California Superior Court, County of Alameda. (Dkt. No. 7.) Defendant Zoho Corporation 13 filed an opposition thereto, after which plaintiff filed a reply brief. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 21.) 14 In addition, on November 25, 2019, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff filed an opposition 16 thereto, after which defendant filed a reply brief. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 23.) 17 Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for 18 the reasons set forth on the record on January 7, 2020, the Court orders as follows: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s common law copyright cause of action is preempted by the Copyright Act, 20 17 U.S.C. section 301(a). Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th 21 Cir. 2001); Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 Thus, this state law claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1 23 (2) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining 24 claims. Acri v. Varian Associates 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court 25

26 1 Insofar as the preempted claim may be recharacterized as a federal claim, Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2018), plaintiff has conceded that she cannot 27 maintain such a claim at this juncture given her failure to register the copyright at issue. Reed 1 therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the Court 2 GRANTS plaintiff’ s motion to remand this action to the California Superior Court, 3 County of Alameda. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the case and close the 4 file. 5 This Order terminates Docket Number 7. 6 IT Is SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 9, 2020 - -—— as 4 “Se □ 9 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamkin-v-zoho-corporation-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack