United States District Court, C.D. California
GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, INC., d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff,
FOREVER 21, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION ; DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are Defendant Forever 21, Inc.'s Motion
for Summary Judgment (“Defendant's Motion”)
 and Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile,
Inc.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary
Adjudication (“Plaintiff's Motion”) .
Having considered all papers filed in support of the Motions,
the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. However, the
Court DENIES Defendant's request for
is a California-based textile company. Pl.'s Statement of
Uncontroverted Facts (“Pl.'s SUF”) ¶ 1,
ECF No. 47-1. Plaintiff creates artwork and purchases the
rights to artwork, which it then uses to create fabric that
it sells to its customers. Id. ¶¶ 2-3.
Plaintiff developed the design at issue in this Action, 1461
- Crochet emb. (“1461 Design” or “Subject
Design”), using a compilation of source artwork.
Def.'s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts
(“Def.'s SUF”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 57-6. On
October 24, 2013, Plaintiff received copyright registration
VAu 1-151-509 (the “‘509 Registration”) for
the Subject Design, which was included in a group of designs.
Decl. of Gabriela Rivera in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for
Summ. J. (“Rivera Decl.”), Ex. 4, ECF No. 57-1.
2014, Defendant began working on a garment design with its
vendor, Reliable Industrial Ltd. (“Reliable”),
which is based in Hong Kong. Def.'s SUF ¶ 35, 37. By
August 21, 2014, Defendant had reviewed a fabric sample from
Reliable, developed a design incorporating the fabric, and
sent Reliable instructions for the production of garments
(the “Accused Garments”). Id. ¶ 37.
The fabric sample was sourced from Reliable's vendor,
Xinhong Weaving Industrial, Co., Ltd.
(“Xinhong”), which is located in China.
Id. ¶ 35. Xinhong had sold a similar fabric, QT
780, in June 2013. Id. ¶ 36. Reliable completed
production of the Accused Garments and began shipping them to
Defendant in March 2016.
January 15, 2016, Plaintiff, in an unrelated action, sued
Sanctuary Clothing, LLC (“Sanctuary”) for
copyright infringement of the 1461 Design based on the
‘509 Registration. Id. ¶ 9 (citing
Gold Value Int'l Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing,
LLC, No. LACV1600339JAKFFMX, 2017 WL 3477746 (C.D. Cal.
May 12, 2017)). Sanctuary sought invalidation of the
‘509 Registration based on Plaintiff's
misrepresentation to the Copyright Office that the work was
unpublished. Id. ¶ 10. After cross-motions for
summary judgment and confirmation from the Copyright Office
that it would have refused registration of the 1461 Design if
the Copyright Office had been aware that the 1461 Design had
been previously published, the court found the ‘509
Registration invalid on May 12, 2017. Id.
9, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel filed a second application
to register the 1461 Design. Id. ¶ 7. In this
application, Plaintiff's counsel did not disclose that
the 1461 Design is a derivative work based on preexisting
source art. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff received
copyright registration VA 2-006-252 (the “‘252
Registration”) for the Subject Design, effective June
9, 2016. Rivera Decl., Ex. 6.
filed its Complaint  on September 23, 2016, alleging
copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and
contributory copyright infringement based on the ‘509
Registration. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 508, Plaintiff
filed its Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a
Copyright  on September 23, 2016, which named the
‘509 Registration as the copyright at issue. Plaintiff
then filed another Report on the Filing of an Action
Regarding a Copyright  on June 6, 2017, which named the
filed its Motion  on February 27, 2018. Defendant filed
its Opposition  to Plaintiff's Motion on March 13,
2018. Defendant then filed its Motion  on March 27, 2018.
Plaintiff filed its Opposition  to Defendant's Motion
on April 10, 2018. The parties filed their respective Replies
[74, 75] on April 24, 2018.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) states that a “court
shall grant summary judgment” when “the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” A fact is “material” for purposes of
summary judgment if it might affect the outcome of the suit,
and a “genuine” issue exists if the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for
the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The
evidence, and any inferences based on underlying facts, must
be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715
F.2d 1327, 1328-29 (9th Cir. 1983). In ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, the court's function is not to weigh
the evidence, but only to determine if a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant
need only prove that there is no evidence to support the
nonmovant's case. In re Oracle Corp. Secs.
Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). If the movant
satisfies this burden, the burden then shifts to the
nonmovant to produce admissible evidence showing a triable
issue of fact. Id.; Nissan Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir.
2000); see also Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys.
Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805-06 (1999) (quoting Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 authorizes courts to grant partial
summary judgment to limit the issues to be tried in a case.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Geary, 699 F.Supp.
756, 759 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (citing Lies v. Farrell Lines,
Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981)); see,
e.g., White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1240 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“[A] court may award a partial summary
judgment that decides only [the] issue [of
liability].”). Absent special circumstances, partial
summary judgment is not appealable prior to the entry of a
final judgment because such orders do not dispose of all
claims or end the litigation on the merits. Williamson v.
UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir.
1998) (citations omitted).
Request for Judicial Notice
in its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, requests that
the Court take judicial notice of various filings in a prior
case, which focused on the ‘509 Registration and the
1461 Design. See Def.'s Request for Judicial
Notice, ECF No. 47-3. A district court may take judicial
notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of
“undisputed matters of public record, including
documents on file in federal or state courts.”
Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126,
1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). The
documents of which Defendant seeks judicial notice are all
filings that are a matter of public record in the Central
District of California, and therefore, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's request and takes
judicial notice of Exhibits 12 through 23.
objects to evidence Defendant submitted in connection with
its Motion and its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion.
See ECF Nos. 64-7, 74-1. Defendant objects to
evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of its Motion.
See ECF No. 47-2. The parties' objections are
primarily “boilerplate and devoid of any specific
argument or analysis as to why any particular exhibit or
assertion in a declaration should be excluded, ” and
therefore, the Court OVERRULES each of these
objections. See Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals,
Inc., 907 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
(“This Court need not address boilerplate evidentiary
objections that the parties themselves deem unworthy of
development, and the Court accordingly summarily overrules
the objections.” (internal citations omitted)).
“To the extent that the Court relied on objected-to
evidence, [the Court] relied only on admissible
evidence” and therefore, ...