The Second Amended Complaint filed by Sarah Andersen removes the dismissed unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims. But it still includes the DMCA CMI claims that Judge Orrick dismissed with prejudice (see order below).
Apparently, as noted in the joint case management statement of the parties, in light of “Judge Tigar has certified that question [interpretation of DMCA CMI claims to apply to identical copies] for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 22-cv-06823-JST, 2024 WL 4336532 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2024),” the Plaintiffs sought–and must have received permission–to leave the DMCA claims in the Second Amended Complaint in case there is “a material change in law” from the Ninth Circuit appeal.
2d Amended Complaint by Sarah Andersen
