IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
October 4, 2011
AF HOLDINGS LLC,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Court Judge
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 2 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 3 415-325-5900 email@example.com 4 Attorney for Plaintiff5 6
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1),
Plaintiff voluntary dismisses all claims without prejudice brought in this action against a single anonymous Doe Defendant associated with the following Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses:
220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168. As noted on Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint, these IP addresses 24 were issued by Comcast Cable Communications, and Doe Defendant was personally observed by 25
Plaintiff's agents using these IP addresses in this particular swarm
in this case unlawfully infringing 26
Plaintiff's copyrighted works in April and June of 2011.*fn1
Further, from other information gained
from Plaintiff's agents' proprietary technology and general research,
this Doe Defendant appears to 2 have not only infringed upon
Plaintiff's copyrighted works, but also used another IP address to 3
infringe upon the works of separate and distinct copyright holder in
different case in the Northern 4
District of California. (See Pacific Century International Ltd v. Does
1-129, Case No. 11-CV-03681, 5
ECF No. 14). Considering the volatile nature of this District, and in
light of the egregious 6 7 infringements committed by this serial
pirate, Plaintiff hereby chooses to dismisses Doe Defendant
associated with IP addresses 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 without
prejudice to pursue that 9 individual together with the other harmed
party in a consolidated lawsuit focus on this single lawsuit 10 and
his or her multiple IP addresses.
In light of the above, two (2) motions pending in this case -- Motion of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 17) and Motion of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 13 14 respectively, are hereby moot, and should be denied by the Court on such grounds. Likewise, 16 obviates any response from Plaintiff or a hearing on these motions. 17
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the Doe Defendant has neither 18 filed an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, nor a motion for summary judgment. Dismissal under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate. Inclusive of this dismissal, Doe 20 Defendant has hereby been dismissed from this action without prejudice, and, again, his or her 21 22 as moot as their associated IP addresses are no longer part of this suit and the subpoenas are no 24 longer active. 25 18) -- that are associated with this Doe Defendant and IP addresses 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206, Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) should hereby be denied Plaintiff still maintains claims against the other anonymous Doe Defendant(s) remaining in this action, and reserves the right to name such individuals and/or serve them when in possession of 3 their identifying information in this case. 4
In light of the above, Doe Defendant associated with IP addresses 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 are hereby DISMISSED from this case without prejudice, and, therefore are no 18 19 longer part of this suit. Additionally, his or her Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) are DENIED as the issues raised therein are now MOOT.
Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff serve copies of this Order onto the relevant ISPs.
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 17 and 18.
IT IS SO ORDERED.