Cinematix, LLC v. Einthusan
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02749
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Cinematix v. Einthusan, Judge Chen granted defendants’ motions to dismiss because Canada was the more suitable forum, conditioned on accepting service there.
The plaintiffs’ copyright lawsuit was directed to Canada rather than continuing in the Northern District of California; the defendants must accept service in Canada as a condition of dismissal.
What happened
Cinematix, LLC v. Einthusan, et al. concerns a copyright-infringement lawsuit involving websites that plaintiffs alleged streamed pirated films. The plaintiffs included Cinematix, LLC, AP International, Home Screen Entertainment, FZE, and Home Screen Entertainment, PTE. Ltd.; the defendants included Lotus Five Star, LTD, Leo India Films, LTD, and Arun Shanmuganathan.
The defendants argued that the case should be heard in Canada rather than California. The court found that Canada was an adequate alternative forum, that the parties and relevant evidence had stronger connections to Canada, and that the private and public interests strongly favored litigation there. The court did not decide the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction or service-of-process arguments because the forum issue resolved the case more efficiently.
Judge Edward Chen granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, conditioned on the defendants accepting service in Canada. The parties were ordered to file a status report about service there by March 2, 2020. The order also states that it disposed of the listed motions, including plaintiffs’ motion to strike, but it does not separately describe the ruling on that motion.
The detailed version
- Cinematix, LLC v. Einthusan · No. 3:19-cv-02749
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs alleged in their first amended complaint that the defendants’ streaming websites infringed copyrights in motion pictures. The defendants were Lotus Five Star, LTD, Leo India Films, LTD, and Arun Shanmuganathan. The plaintiffs were Cinematix, LLC, AP International, Home Screen Entertainment, FZE, and Home Screen Entertainment, PTE. Ltd.
The Einthusan websites were created by a Canadian company in 2011 and were later sold to Lotus. Lotus stated that it had obtained licenses for the films in its library. In 2017, Lotus sold the Einthusan brand name and trademarks to Leo. Lotus and Leo had their principal places of business in Toronto, Canada, and Shanmuganathan was a resident of Sri Lanka who sometimes traveled to Canada. Cinematix was located in Washington, and the other plaintiffs were foreign entities.
Motions and Legal Standard
Lotus and Shanmuganathan moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens is a doctrine allowing a court to dismiss when another available country is substantially more suitable for resolving the dispute. Leo separately moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The plaintiffs also moved to strike Leo’s reply brief because it contained evidentiary objections.
A defendant seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds must show both that an adequate alternative forum exists and that the private and public interest factors favor that forum. The court noted that a domestic plaintiff’s choice of forum generally receives substantial deference, while a foreign plaintiff’s choice receives less.
Adequate Alternative Forum
The defendants agreed to accept service in Canada. The court found Canada adequate because the plaintiffs did not substantively explain why Canadian copyright law would fail to provide an adequate remedy. The plaintiffs agreed at the hearing that Canadian copyright law was substantially similar to U.S. copyright law, and they did not argue that a Canadian court could not apply U.S. copyright law.
Private-Interest Factors
The court found that the private-interest factors strongly favored Canada. Except for Cinematix, none of the parties were from the United States. The plaintiffs identified possible witnesses in the United States but did not identify any California or U.S. witness who was indispensable to the case. The court also found no evidence uniquely located in California.
The servers containing the films were represented to be located in Toronto, Dallas, Washington, D.C., London, and France—not California. Most defendants were in Canada, and holding the case there would reduce travel because the plaintiffs would have to travel regardless. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ rights could be enforced in Canada and that a Canadian judgment could be domesticated and enforced in the United States.
Public-Interest Factors
The court found that California had no obvious interest in resolving the dispute. It characterized the case as a dispute between foreign parties about their legal rights in copyrighted films, rather than a consumer-fraud case involving California residents. Canada, by contrast, had an interest in resolving a dispute involving its residents. The public-interest factors therefore also strongly favored Canada.
Personal Jurisdiction and Service
Because forum non conveniens is a nonmerits ground for dismissal, the court concluded that it did not need to resolve the personal-jurisdiction issue. The court stated that the personal-jurisdiction questions were relatively complex and that the forum factors strongly favored dismissal.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The dismissal was conditioned on the defendants’ accepting service in Canada. The parties were ordered to file a status report by March 2, 2020, regarding service in Canada. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 53, 64, and 73. It does not separately state the outcome of the plaintiffs’ motion to strike.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.