{"cached_at":"2026-11-12T11:49:15.164532+00:00","cl_docket_id":"6906294","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","id":6906294,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/24966404/","date_created":"2018-11-21T10:37:14.072721-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-28T10:52:02.360468-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"4","docket_number":"1702758","origin":1,"date_filed":"2017-05-12","jurisdiction":3,"nature_of_suit":820,"title":"17","section":"0101","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":null,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":9999,"county_of_residence":88888,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"LONG, ET AL","defendant":"DORSET, ET AL","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":"2019-12-11","termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":5,"disposition":2,"nature_of_judgement":0,"amount_received":0,"judgment":0,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2020,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca9/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/"},"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1346/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2018-05-24T15:27:23.691269-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-13T23:07:28.675650-07:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Phyllis J. Hamilton","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-11-11T23:20:39.857539-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2017-05-12","date_terminated":"2021-09-17","date_last_filing":"2021-10-04","case_name_short":"Dorset","case_name":"Long, M.D. v. Dorset","case_name_full":"","slug":"long-md-v-dorset","docket_number":"4:17-cv-02758","docket_number_core":"1702758","docket_number_raw":"4:17-cv-02758","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"311637","cause":"17:101 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"820 Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.311637/gov.uscourts.cand.311637.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11069654/","id":11069654,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248466/","attorney_id":7248466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248466/","attorney_id":7248466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100378/","attorney_id":5100378,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100378/","attorney_id":5100378,"date_action":"2021-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100379/","attorney_id":5100379,"date_action":"2019-06-21","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248467/","attorney_id":7248467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248467/","attorney_id":7248467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100380/","attorney_id":5100380,"date_action":"2018-05-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100380/","attorney_id":5100380,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100381/","attorney_id":5100381,"date_action":"2021-07-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.265434-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.265456-07:00","name":"Raymond Long, M.D.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/7769932/","id":7769932,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100382/","attorney_id":5100382,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100382/","attorney_id":5100382,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100383/","attorney_id":5100383,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100384/","attorney_id":5100384,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.932633-07:00","date_modified":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.932667-07:00","name":"Facebook, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/7769931/","id":7769931,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.919956-07:00","date_modified":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.919974-07:00","name":"Tammy Dorset","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/7769930/","id":7769930,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248466/","attorney_id":7248466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248466/","attorney_id":7248466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100378/","attorney_id":5100378,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100378/","attorney_id":5100378,"date_action":"2021-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100379/","attorney_id":5100379,"date_action":"2019-06-21","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248467/","attorney_id":7248467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7248467/","attorney_id":7248467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100380/","attorney_id":5100380,"date_action":"2018-05-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100380/","attorney_id":5100380,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5100381/","attorney_id":5100381,"date_action":"2021-07-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","docket_id":6906294,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.847124-07:00","date_modified":"2019-06-18T23:13:10.847146-07:00","name":"Bandha Yoga Publications, LLC","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/325110256/","id":325110256,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/331371555/","id":331371555,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-05-13T23:25:28.675182-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-13T23:25:28.675186-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment - Text Only","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-13T23:25:28.667759-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-13T23:25:28.667763-07:00","date_filed":"2017-05-25","time_filed":"08:29:05","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2017-05-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/324004975/","id":324004975,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/330265646/","id":330265646,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-05-13T08:40:40.982988-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-13T08:40:40.982992-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"~Util - Case Assigned by Intake","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-13T08:40:40.964346-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-13T08:40:40.964350-07:00","date_filed":"2017-05-12","time_filed":"15:46:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2017-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/176721925/","id":176721925,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/182085288/","id":182085288,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/89/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-10-04T12:34:55.022036-07:00","date_modified":"2021-10-04T12:34:55.027060-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"89","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021129233","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-10-04T12:34:55.013469-07:00","date_modified":"2021-10-04T12:34:55.015059-07:00","date_filed":"2021-10-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":89,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-10-04T19:28:41+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":247,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/176568371/","id":176568371,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/181928882/","id":181928882,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/88/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-10-01T13:34:50.899548-07:00","date_modified":"2021-10-01T13:34:50.902511-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"88","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021123824","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-10-01T13:34:50.891686-07:00","date_modified":"2021-10-01T13:34:50.893161-07:00","date_filed":"2021-10-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":88,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-10-01T20:18:36+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":245,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175886288/","id":175886288,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/181237006/","id":181237006,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/87/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-09-24T10:34:51.396195-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-24T10:34:51.399613-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"87","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021091047","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change In Counsel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-24T10:34:51.391267-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-24T10:34:51.392121-07:00","date_filed":"2021-09-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":87,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-09-24T17:11:46+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":243,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175783065/","id":175783065,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/181132513/","id":181132513,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2021-09-23T11:43:01.974603-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:01.982374-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-23T11:43:01.963696-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:01.963737-07:00","date_filed":"2021-07-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-07-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Electronic filing error. This filing will not be processed by the clerks office. Please re-file in its entirety 73 First MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Applicat ion ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number 0971-16228028.) filed by Raymond Long, M.D. ***Admission procedures #1 and 2, available on the Court's website, not followed. Court's application form not used, certificate of good standing not included, application not e-filed using the ECF login and password for the attorney who seeks to be admitted.*** (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175597886/","id":175597886,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/180944081/","id":180944081,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/86/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-09-21T16:51:47.439224-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.247234-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"86","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021075624","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Copyright","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-21T16:51:47.423709-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.235372-07:00","date_filed":"2021-09-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":86,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-09-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":241,"description":"REPORT on the filing or determination of an action closing Copyright case (cc: form mailed to register). (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2021) (Entered: 09/21/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175597885/","id":175597885,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/180944080/","id":180944080,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2021-09-21T16:51:46.504608-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-21T16:51:46.511837-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-21T16:51:46.493941-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-21T16:51:46.493974-07:00","date_filed":"2018-11-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-11-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175328809/","id":175328809,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/180670815/","id":180670815,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/84/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-09-17T16:06:23.607003-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.202155-07:00","sha1":"7c8170c574f141133145719ec6bca1e8664f04b1","page_count":6,"file_size":133491,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.311637/gov.uscourts.cand.311637.84.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.311637/gov.uscourts.cand.311637.84.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1\n\n                                   2\n\n                                   3\n\n                                   4                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                                   5                            NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   6\n\n                                   7     RAYMOND LONG, M.D., et al.,\n                                                                                         Case No. 17-cv-02758-PJH\n                                   8                   Plaintiffs,\n\n                                   9             v.                                      ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO\n                                                                                         DISMISS SECOND AMENDED\n                                  10     TAMMY DORSET, et al.,                           COMPLAINT\n                                  11                   Defendants.                       Re: Dkt. No. 75\n\n                                  12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13          Before the court is defendant Facebook, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cdefendant\u201d) motion to dismiss\n                                  14   plaintiffs Raymond Long, M.D.\u2019s (\u201cLong\u201d) and Bandha Yoga Publications, LLC\u2019s\n                                  15   (\u201cBandha\u201d) (collectively, \u201cplaintiff\u201d) second amended complaint (\u201cSAC\u201d). Dkt. 75. Having\n                                  16   read the parties\u2019 papers and considered their argument and the relevant legal authority,\n                                  17   and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\n                                  18                                         BACKGROUND\n                                  19          This lawsuit is a copyright infringement action brought by plaintiff against\n                                  20   defendant and unspecified Doe defendants. It arises out of a hacker\u2019s illicit access to\n                                  21   and control of plaintiff\u2019s Facebook page. While in control, the hacker posted on the page\n                                  22   various links and images related to plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted material. The parties are\n                                  23   familiar with the events giving rise to this action. They are also familiar with its procedural\n                                  24   posture. The court will detail its background only as necessary below.\n                                  25                                          DISCUSSION\n                                  26          In its first amended complaint (\u201cFAC\u201d), plaintiff alleged seven claims against\n                                  27   defendant. Dkt. 27 (FAC) \u00b6\u00b6 102-126 (direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright\n                                  28   infringement), \u00b6\u00b6 167-71 (negligence), \u00b6\u00b6 172-74 (aiding and abetting), \u00b6\u00b6 175-80\n\f                                           Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1   (breach of contract), \u00b6\u00b6 181-84 (violation of Business & Professions Code \u00a7 17200). For\n                                   2   purposes of this order, the court need address only one of the three copyright claims\n                                   3   alleged in the FAC\u2014namely, the contributory infringement claim. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 109-16.\n                                   4          On February 22, 2019, the court dismissed that claim with prejudice. Dkt. 45 at\n                                   5   10. Aside from a footnote, id. at 10 n.7, the court did not address whether plaintiff stated\n                                   6   a prima facie claim for contributory infringement. The court did not decide whether\n                                   7   plaintiff identified communications that it sent to defendant that complied with any take\n                                   8   down notice conditions required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act\u2019s (\u201cDMCA\u201d), Title\n                                   9   17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512. Instead, the court found that, \u201cregardless of whether plaintiff sent\n                                  10   notices that complied with the DMCA\u2019s requirements,\u201d id. at 7, defendant expeditiously\n                                  11   removed any infringing material, id. at 9-10. Based on that finding, the court held that the\n                                  12   DMCA\u2019s safe harbor applies to the contributory infringement claim. Id. at 10. Plaintiff\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13   appealed. Dkt. 63.\n                                  14          On April 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition. Dkt. 65.\n                                  15   The panel affirmed the court\u2019s dismissal of the contributory infringement claim. Id. at 4. It\n                                  16   held that plaintiff \u201cfail[ed] to plausibly establish that [defendant] actually knew precisely\n                                  17   what infringing material was available on Facebook.\u201d Id. The panel based that holding\n                                  18   on the FAC\u2019s allegations, the parties\u2019 communications, and the attachments to such\n                                  19   communications. Id.1\n                                  20          However, the panel then observed that \u201c[t]his defect could theoretically, however,\n                                  21   be cured by the allegation of other facts.\u201d Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted). As a\n                                  22\n\n                                  23\n                                       1 In its opposition, plaintiff states that \u201c[n]othing in the [panel\u2019s] opinion suggests that the\n                                       Panel construed the FAC as alleging that infringing images were posted directly on the\n                                  24   Bandha Yoga page that Facebook had the right and ability to control.\u201d Dkt. 80 at 17.\n                                       That statement shows that plaintiff misunderstands the panel\u2019s decision. Dkt. 65 at 2\n                                  25   (\u201c[Plaintiff] contacted [defendant], and after eight days of email communications,\n                                       [defendant] revoked [the hacker\u2019s] administrator access, an action that automatically\n                                  26   deleted all of [the hacker\u2019s] posts, including those that contained or linked to\n                                       infringing material.\u201d) (emphasis added).\n                                  27\n                                       Additionally, contrary to plaintiff\u2019s characterization of that decision as \u201cnon-precedential,\u201d\n                                  28   Dkt. 80 at 17, that decision may qualify as precedential under the law of the case\n                                       doctrine. See Ninth Cir. R. 36-3(a).\n                                                                                       2\n\f                                           Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1   primary example, the panel indicated that \u201cif [plaintiff] could plead facts describing a\n                                   2   different communication to Facebook that clearly identified a set of specific infringing\n                                   3   images on Facebook and, at the same time, clearly indicated his ownership of those\n                                   4   specific images, he could state a prima facie claim for contributory infringement, and the\n                                   5   burden would then shift to Facebook to prove any affirmative defenses.\u201d Id. at 4-5.\n                                   6          The panel then \u201cnote[d] that amendment would not necessarily be futile.\u201d Id. at 5.\n                                   7   The panel explained that, \u201c[b]ecause an Amended Complaint may plead new facts\n                                   8   informing both whether [plaintiff\u2019s] communications satisfied [Title 17 U.S.C.] \u00a7\n                                   9   512(c)(3)(A) and whether, if so, [defendant\u2019s] response was expeditious,\u201d this court\u2019s\n                                  10   holding in its February 22, 2019 order (that the DMCA\u2019s safe harbor applies) \u201cdoes not\n                                  11   provide an independent alternative ground for dismissal with prejudice.\u201d Id. The panel\n                                  12\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n                                       then directed this court to permit plaintiff leave to amend. Id. This court did so. Dkt. 67.\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13          On July 1, 2021, plaintiff filed its operative second amended complaint. Dkt. 70.\n                                  14   On July 29, 2021, defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss. Dkt. 75. In it, defendant\n                                  15   proffers two arguments. First, defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to remedy the actual\n                                  16   knowledge defects identified by the panel as necessary to state a prima facie claim for\n                                  17   contributory infringement. Second, defendant argues that the DMCA safe harbor applies.\n                                  18          Based on the panel\u2019s instructions, it appears that the main question to determine\n                                  19   the viability of the contributory infringement claim is whether the SAC alleges a \u201cdifferent\n                                  20   communication to defendant\u201d that \u201cclearly identified a set of specific infringing images on\n                                  21   Facebook\u201d and \u201cat the same time, clearly indicated his ownership of those specific\n                                  22   image.\u201d\n                                  23          The court finds that the SAC does not. The court closely reviewed th at amended\n                                  24   pleading and compared it to the FAC. It also tediously tallied all communications. In his\n                                  25   SAC, plaintiff specifies only the same communications alleged in his FAC.2 Given that,\n                                  26\n                                       2 Compare SAC \u00b6\u00b6 45-49 (May 24, 2015 emails and May 24, 2015 and May 25, 2015\n                                  27\n                                       intellectual property (\u201cIP\u201d) reporting forms) with FAC \u00b6\u00b6 42-46 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6\n                                  28   52 (May 25, 2015 email using account associated with plaintiff\u2019s Facebook business\n                                       page) with FAC \u00b6 51 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6\u00b6 60-61 (more May 25, 2015 emails) with\n                                                                                      3\n\f                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1   plaintiff necessarily failed to identify any new, different communications by it to defendant\n                                   2   establishing that defendant had actual knowledge of the specific infringing material.\n                                   3          That said, the court notes that the panel\u2019s observation about amendment was\n                                   4   illustrative of the sort of new facts that plaintiff could allege to satisfy the actual\n                                   5   knowledge element necessary to state a prima face contributory infringement claim. Dkt.\n                                   6   65 at 4 (\u201cFor instance, if [plaintiff] could plead facts describing a different communication\n                                   7   . . .\u201d) (emphasis added). Thus, the court understands that plaintiff may nonetheless show\n                                   8   that element by other facts that do not necessarily involve different communications.\n                                   9          In its opposition, plaintiff suggests that its newly added allegations at paragraph 59\n                                  10   satisfy that element. Dkt. 80 at 26-27. In particular, plaintiff argues that:\n                                  11                  Contrary to Facebook\u2019s claim that [plaintiff] did not tell\n                                                      [defendant] \u201cprecisely what infringing material was available on\n                                  12                  [defendant],\u201d . . . [plaintiff] specifically pleads that \u201c[defendant]\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                                      was aware from [plaintiff\u2019s] DMCA notices that everything\n                                  13                  the [hacker] posted on [plaintiff\u2019s] Bandha Yoga Facebook\n                                                      page was copyrighted by [plaintiff] and all that material\n                                  14                  infringed on [plaintiff]\u2019s copyrights.\u201d Id. at 26 (emphasis in\n                                                      the original).\n                                  15\n\n                                  16          To support the portion quoted in bold, plaintiff primarily cites SAC paragraph 59(a).\n                                  17   In that paragraph, plaintiff alleges (on information and belief) that defendant maintains\n                                  18   certain website \u201cscraping\u201d software that enables defendant to identify \u201c\u2018new\u2019 material\n                                  19   posted onto a website after a specific date.\u201d SAC \u00b6 59(a); see also Id. \u00b6 59(b)\n                                  20   (substantially similar assertion). Plaintiff also parenthetically cites paragraph 59(e). Dkt.\n                                  21   80 at 26-27. In that paragraph, plaintiff asserts that he \u201cspecifically identified the\n                                  22   infringing images\u201d and \u201csupplied a link to his blog showing the \u2018source\u2019 of the improperly\n                                  23   copied infringing material.\u201d SAC \u00b6 59(e). Plaintiff further alleges (on information and\n                                  24\n\n                                  25\n                                       FAC \u00b6\u00b6 57-58 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6\u00b6 68-71 (May 26, 2015 communications) with\n                                  26   FAC \u00b6 67-70 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6\u00b6 74, 77-78 (May 27, 2015 communications) with\n                                       FAC \u00b6 72, 75-76 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6 81 (May 28, 2015 notices and\n                                  27   communications) with FAC \u00b6 78 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6\u00b6 83-86 (May 29, 2015\n                                       communications) with FAC \u00b6\u00b6 80-83 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6 88 (May 30, 2015 notices)\n                                  28   with FAC \u00b6 84 (same); Compare SAC \u00b6 89 (June 1, 2015 response) with FAC \u00b6 85\n                                       (same); see also Dkt. 70-1 (redline comparing SAC to FAC).\n                                                                                   4\n\f                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1   belief) that defendant has certain \u201cneural network and artificial intelligence\u201d software that\n                                   2   permits it to identify and remove potentially infringing material. Id.\n                                   3          When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court does not consider conclusions. It\n                                   4   considers only facts. For that reason, the court disregards paragraph 59(e)\u2019s first\n                                   5   assertion that he \u201cspecifically identified\u201d the infringing material.\n                                   6          After applying that basic principle to the above paragraphs, the court finds that\n                                   7   their remaining factual allegations fail to plausibly establish that defendant had actual\n                                   8   knowledge of the specific infringing material. At best, paragraphs 59(a)\u2019s and 59(e)\u2019s\n                                   9   unverified assertions about defendant\u2019s use of \u201cscraping\u201d or other \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d\n                                  10   software supports the inference that defendant could become aware of all information\n                                  11   posted. That inference does not establish \u201cactual knowledge\u201d (or \u201cawareness,\u201d however\n                                  12   put). It also says nothing about defendant\u2019s mental state as it pertains to \u201cprecisely what\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13   infringing material was available on Facebook.\u201d Dkt. 65 at 4 (emphasis added).\n                                  14          That leaves paragraph 59(e)\u2019s second assertion that plaintiff sent defendant a link\n                                  15   to his blog. Plaintiff does not make any attempt to show that such communication was\n                                  16   any different than those already enumerated, considered, and rejected in his FAC.\n                                  17   Regardless, even if plaintiff had, defendant\u2019s receipt of a \u201clink\u201d to a blog does not show\n                                  18   actual knowledge of any specific infringing material posted on Facebook.\n                                  19          Finally, the court observes that the SAC includes one other allegation related to\n                                  20   the knowledge element. That allegation appears at paragraph 55. Plaintiff fails to cite\n                                  21   that allegation in support of its position on the knowledge issue. To provide this action\n                                  22   some long-awaited repose, the court will address it.\n                                  23          At paragraph 55, plaintiff alleges that defendant\u2019s May 25, 2015 at 12:28 am\n                                  24   communication to plaintiff (first referenced at SAC \u00b6 54) shows that defendant\n                                  25   \u201cacknowledge[ed] receipt\u201d of plaintiff\u2019s communications and, thus, \u201cwas aware\u201d of\n                                  26   plaintiff\u2019s purported take down notices. SAC \u00b6 55. Perhaps. But plaintiff\u2019s allegati on at\n                                  27   paragraph 55 is a new argument, not a new fact. In its FAC, plaintiff identifies that exact\n                                  28   same communication. Compare FAC \u00b6 53. Thus, the court finds that paragraph 55 does\n                                                                                      5\n\f                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 84 Filed 09/17/21 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                   1   nothing to cure the actual knowledge defect identified by the panel in its decision.\n                                   2          In short, the court concludes that plaintiff failed to cure the actual knowledge\n                                   3   defects identified by the panel. As a result, the panel\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff failed to\n                                   4   state a prima facie claim for contributory infringement remains con trolling. Separately,\n                                   5   because plaintiff has failed to allege any additional facts in the SAC that would alter this\n                                   6   court\u2019s February 22, 2019 holding that defendant expeditiously removed any infringing\n                                   7   material, the court further concludes that the DMCA safe harbor defense still applies.\n                                   8                                          CONCLUSION\n                                   9          For the above reasons, the court GRANTS defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s\n                                  10   second amended complaint. The panel permitted plaintiff the opportunity to amend the\n                                  11   contributory infringement claim. The panel clearly instructed plaintiff how it may cure that\n                                  12   claim\u2019s defects. Plaintiff failed to remedy such defects. On that basis, the court finds\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13   permitting plaintiff further leave to amend this claim would be futile. Accordingly, the\n                                  14   court dismisses this claim with prejudice. Given that, the court notes that all of plaintiff\u2019s\n                                  15   claims in this action have been finally adjudicated (at least in this court).\n                                  16          The court will again enter judgment.\n                                  17          IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n                                  18   Dated: September 17, 2021\n\n                                  19                                                 Phyllis J. Hamilton\n                                                                                     PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON\n                                  20                                                 United States District Judge\n                                  21\n\n                                  22\n\n                                  23\n\n                                  24\n\n                                  25\n\n                                  26\n\n                                  27\n\n                                  28\n                                                                                      6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2021-09-18T01:30:05.586989-07:00","document_number":"84","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021063907","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-17T16:06:23.599992-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.191881-07:00","date_filed":"2021-09-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":84,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":235,"description":"ORDER GRANTING 75 MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2021) (Entered: 09/17/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/175328789/","id":175328789,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/180670796/","id":180670796,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/85/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-09-17T16:06:23.389380-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.228536-07:00","sha1":"5739e9965c475ed2fa6f9723c960d5973d31909c","page_count":2,"file_size":70794,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.311637/gov.uscourts.cand.311637.85.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.311637/gov.uscourts.cand.311637.85.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 85 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                                   1\n\n                                   2                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                                   3                            NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   4\n\n                                   5     RAYMOND LONG, M.D., et al.,\n                                                                                        Case No. 17-cv-02758-PJH\n                                   6                   Plaintiffs,\n\n                                   7             v.                                     JUDGMENT\n                                   8     TAMMY DORSET, et al.,\n                                   9                   Defendants.\n\n                                  10\n\n                                  11\n\n                                  12          On February 22, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiffs Raymond Long, M.D.\u2019s and\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13   Bandha Yoga Publications, LLC\u2019s (collectively, \u201cplaintiff\u201d) claims in the above-entitled\n\n                                  14   action against defendant Facebook, Inc. (\u201cdefendant Facebook\u201d) with and without\n\n                                  15   prejudice. Dkt. 45. Plaintiff failed to timely file an amen ded pleading against defendant\n\n                                  16   Facebook with respect to those claims dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. 60. On\n\n                                  17   December 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendant Tammy\n\n                                  18   Dorset (\u201cdefendant Dorset\u201d) and any related Doe defendant for failure to serve. Dkt. 61.\n\n                                  19   On December 11, 2019, the court entered judgment against plaintiff. Dkt. 62.\n\n                                  20          On April 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court\u2019s dismissal with prejudice of\n\n                                  21   all plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendant Facebook, except for the claim for contributory\n\n                                  22   copyright infringement. Dkt. 65. The panel directed this court to permit plaintiff to leave\n\n                                  23   to amend that single claim. On September 17, 2021, the court again dismissed that claim\n\n                                  24   with prejudice. Thus, the court has finally adjudicated all claims in this action.\n\n                                  25          It is Ordered and Adjudged\n\n                                  26          that plaintiff take nothing, and that the action against defendant Facebook again\n\n                                  27   be dismissed with prejudice and that the action against defendant Dorset and any related\n\n                                  28   Doe defendants be dismissed without prejudice.\n\f                                          Case 4:17-cv-02758-PJH Document 85 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                                   1         IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n                                   2   Dated: September 17, 2021\n\n                                   3                                        /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton\n                                                                            PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON\n                                   4                                        United States District Judge\n                                   5\n\n                                   6\n\n                                   7\n\n                                   8\n\n                                   9\n\n                                  10\n\n                                  11\n\n                                  12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n                                  13\n\n                                  14\n\n                                  15\n\n                                  16\n\n                                  17\n\n                                  18\n\n                                  19\n\n                                  20\n\n                                  21\n\n                                  22\n\n                                  23\n\n                                  24\n\n                                  25\n\n                                  26\n\n                                  27\n\n                                  28\n                                                                             2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2021-09-18T01:28:56.625805-07:00","document_number":"85","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021063915","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-17T16:06:23.380270-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.216276-07:00","date_filed":"2021-09-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":85,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-09-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":237,"description":"JUDGMENT signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2021) (Entered: 09/17/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/174632580/","id":174632580,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/179964556/","id":179964556,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/83/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-09-09T18:35:29.809343-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.183978-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"83","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021034565","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-09-09T18:35:29.801528-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.173849-07:00","date_filed":"2021-09-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":83,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":232,"description":"REPLY (re 75 MOTION to Dismiss / Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss ) / Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss filed byFacebook, Inc.. (Gratz, Joseph) (Filed on 9/9/2021) (Entered: 09/09/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/173208202/","id":173208202,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/178520472/","id":178520472,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/82/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-24T08:34:25.546532-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.164432-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"82","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020969228","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-24T08:34:25.542022-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.152223-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":82,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":229,"description":"ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' CONSENTED TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND 1 PAGE OVERSIZED BRIEF NUNC PRO TUNC AND SETTING SCHEDULING DATES AS MODIFED BY THE COURT by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 75 MOTION to Dismiss. Opposition due by 8/19/2021. Reply due by 9/9/2021. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2021) (Entered: 08/24/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/173043798/","id":173043798,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/178353227/","id":178353227,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/81/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-21T18:03:50.004690-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.143147-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"81","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020963738","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-21T18:03:49.992957-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.133041-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":81,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":226,"description":"First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 80 Opposition/Response to Motion to Dismiss filed by Raymond Long, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Folkenflik Dec. in support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Folkenflik, Max) (Filed on 8/21/2021) (Entered: 08/21/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/172910516/","id":172910516,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/178218477/","id":178218477,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/80/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-19T17:30:54.376387-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.125533-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"80","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020957132","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-19T17:30:54.371300-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.115022-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":80,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-19.002","pacer_sequence_number":223,"description":"OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 75 MOTION to Dismiss / Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss ) filed byBandha Yoga Publications, LLC, Raymond Long, M.D.. (Folkenflik, Max) (Filed on 8/19/2021) (Entered: 08/19/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/172885918/","id":172885918,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/178193601/","id":178193601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/79/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-19T13:34:56.144836-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.104252-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"79","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020955454","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-19T13:34:56.138179-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.094424-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":79,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":220,"description":"Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (re 75 MOTION to Dismiss / Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss ) filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Gratz, Joseph) (Filed on 8/19/2021) Modified on 8/20/2021 (bnsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/19/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/171607603/","id":171607603,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/176897836/","id":176897836,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/78/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-04T15:34:23.178356-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.088523-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"78","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020899653","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-04T15:34:23.170899-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.077832-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":78,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":217,"description":"ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION OF LEAD COUNSEL AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/4/2021. Attorney Barry Coburn terminated. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2021) (Entered: 08/04/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/171485329/","id":171485329,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/176773569/","id":176773569,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/77/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-08-03T13:35:18.047203-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.068681-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"77","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020893774","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-08-03T13:35:18.039005-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.052878-07:00","date_filed":"2021-08-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":77,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":215,"description":"NOTICE of Substitution of Lead Counsel and Proposed Order by Raymond Long, M.D. (Folkenflik, Max) (Filed on 8/3/2021) Modified on 8/4/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/5/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/171176910/","id":171176910,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/176461401/","id":176461401,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/76/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-07-30T10:03:27.685951-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.045896-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"76","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020880501","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-07-30T10:03:27.678336-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.033347-07:00","date_filed":"2021-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":76,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-07-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":212,"description":"ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 74 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Max Folkenflik. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2021) (Entered: 07/30/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/171132857/","id":171132857,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/176416413/","id":176416413,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/75/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-07-29T22:01:25.468392-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.025954-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"75","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020879573","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-07-29T22:01:25.461237-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.014044-07:00","date_filed":"2021-07-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":75,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-07-29.003","pacer_sequence_number":207,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss / Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss filed by Facebook, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2021 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 8/12/2021. Replies due by 8/19/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Proposed Order)(Gratz, Joseph) (Filed on 7/29/2021) (Entered: 07/29/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/171087283/","id":171087283,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6906294/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/176370476/","id":176370476,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6906294/74/long-md-v-dorset/","date_created":"2021-07-29T13:03:36.091578-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:02.004890-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"74","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020876920","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-07-29T13:03:36.083550-07:00","date_modified":"2021-09-23T11:43:01.990465-07:00","date_filed":"2021-07-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":74,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-07-29.002","pacer_sequence_number":204,"description":"MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Max Folkenflik (Filing fee $ 317, receipt number 0971-16228028.) Filing fee previously paid on 7/28/21 filed by Raymond Long, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of good standing)(Folkenflik, Max) (Filed on 7/29/2021) Modified on 7/30/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2021)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=6906294&page_size=40"}