{"id":439,"date":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=439"},"modified":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","slug":"pardis-music-caltex-cd-cal-grants-remand-dropped-copyright-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=439","title":{"rendered":"Pardis Music v. Caltex Trading \u2014 C.D. Cal. Grants Remand After Plaintiff Drops Federal Copyright Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Pardis Music, Inc. v. Caltex Trading, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-09<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-09476<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; copyright claims; copyright registration prerequisite (17 U.S.C. \u00a7 411); amendment after removal<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Pardis Music, Inc. originally filed suit against Caltex Trading, Caltex Records, Caltex Music LLC, and Mehrdad Pakravan in California state court. The original complaint included federal copyright infringement claims, which prompted removal to federal court on federal-question grounds. After removal, Pardis Music filed an amended complaint as a matter of course removing the federal copyright infringement and injunctive-relief claims, because Pardis Music does not currently have a registered copyright registration \u2014 a statutory prerequisite for filing a federal infringement suit under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 411(a) (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. 296 (2019)).<\/p>\n

Pardis Music then moved to remand the case back to Los Angeles Superior Court because no federal claims remained.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Hernán D. Vera granted the motion to remand. With the federal copyright claims voluntarily dismissed by amendment, the only remaining causes of action arose under California state law. Federal-question jurisdiction was therefore extinguished, and the court remanded the case to state court for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n