Case 2:17-cv-08184-JAK-JC Document 26 Filed 01/22/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:243
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV17-08184 JAK (JCx)
`
`
`Title
`Akiko Kijimoto v. YouTube, LLC, et al.
`
`Date
`
`
`January 22, 2018
`
`
`
`
`JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`Present: The Honorable
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrea Keifer
`Deputy Clerk
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Not Present
`
`
`
`
`Not Reported
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
`JURISDICTION
`
`Akiko Kijimoto (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against YouTube, LLC. and Google, LLC. (“Defendants”).
`Complaint (“Compl.”), Exs. A, B to Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1-1. The Complaints, which are identical and
`not models of clarity, appear to allege various injuries arising from a video that appeared on YouTube.
`Compl., Dkt. 1-1. Defendants removed the action based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
`1332, and relying on the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1. Thus, they
`contend that the Complaints assert claims under that statute.
`
`“[R]emoval based on federal question jurisdiction is improper unless a federal claim appears on the face
`of a well-pleaded complaint.” Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enters., Inc., 908 F.2d 477, 479 (9th Cir.
`1990). “The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on the party invoking the federal removal statute,
`which is strictly construed against removal.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Federal
`jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.
`Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, vague, ambiguous, and passing references to
`federal law in complaints are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Mattel, Inc. v.
`Bryant, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (vague and generalized complaint that failed to
`identify what work was being infringed failed to establish federal question jurisdiction under Copyright
`Act); see also Shelley’s Total Body Works v. City of Auburn, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49723 at *6–7 (W.D.
`Wash Mar. 9 2007) (collecting cases).
`
`Federal question jurisdiction is not established simply because an action involves a claim concerning an
`alleged copyright. Vestron, Inc. v. HBO, Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit has
`adopted the tests set forth in T.B. Harms, Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964), to assess whether
`there is subject matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp.,
`Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). There is subject matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act only
`when: “(1) the complaint asks for a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act; (2) the complaint
`requires an interpretation of the Copyright Act; or (3) federal principles should control the claims.” Id. at
`986.
`
`
`
`Proceedings:
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-08184-JAK-JC Document 26 Filed 01/22/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:244
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV17-08184 JAK (JCx)
`
`
`Title
`Akiko Kijimoto v. YouTube, LLC, et al.
`
`Date
`
`
`January 22, 2018
`
`
`
`As noted, the Complaints here lack clarity. Although each makes several references to the term
`“copyright,” neither expressly identifies the claimed, copyrighted material. Nor does either expressly
`allege infringement of any such material. Further, there are no clear allegations as to any remedy that is
`sought under the Copyright Act. Finally, the Civil Cover Sheets, which accompanied each of the
`Complaints when they were filed in the Superior Court, include references to the following claims:
`“Business tort/unfair business practice …Civil rights …Defamation…Fraud…Intellectual property [and]
`Professional negligence.” Dkt. 1-2 at 2. Although the reference to “Intellectual property” could concern a
`Copyright claim, that is not stated expressly.
`
`Presently pending in this action are Defendants’ motions to dismiss and transfer. Dkt. 9, 11. Until it is
`determined whether there is subject matter jurisdiction, they cannot be addressed, and are taken off
`calendar. On or before January 29, 2018, the parties shall submit any responses to this Order, stating
`their positions as to subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants shall file a joint response. Each response shall
`not exceed five pages. Upon receiving these memoranda, the Court will determine whether a hearing on
`any issue raised is necessary or if the matter of jurisdiction can be addressed without a hearing. Whether
`the motion to dismiss and motion to transfer will be returned to the calendar will also be determined at that
`time. If it is determined that the standards for establishing federal jurisdiction have not been met, the
`matter will be remanded to the Superior Court.
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`
`ak
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`