Tamkin v. Zoho Corporation

Background

Tricia Tamkin sued Zoho Corporation. The opinion states that Tamkin asserted a common-law copyright claim along with remaining claims. Tamkin moved to remand the case to the California Superior Court for Alameda County. Zoho opposed the remand motion and filed a separate motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings

The court held that Tamkin’s common-law copyright claim was preempted by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Preemption means that federal law displaces the state-law claim. The court dismissed that claim with prejudice, meaning the order bars that claim from being refiled in that form.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tamkin’s remaining claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims after considering the claims supporting federal jurisdiction. The court stated that it therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case and granted Tamkin’s motion to remand the action to the California Superior Court for Alameda County. The Clerk was directed to remand the case and close the file. The order also states that Docket Number 7 was terminated.

The opinion’s footnote states that, if the preempted claim could be treated as a federal copyright claim, Tamkin had conceded that she could not maintain such a claim at that point because she had not registered the copyright at issue.

Classification Basis

This is a mixed ruling. The court decided the merits of the common-law copyright claim by finding it preempted and dismissing it with prejudice, but disposed of the remaining claims on a jurisdictional ground by declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the case. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.