Fahmy v. Jay-Z et al
Filing
76
ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendants Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr Hahn Music, Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure Agreement Music, Rob Bourdon Music, Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson.(Lewis, Alexa)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN (SBN 49087)
rjf@msk.com
ALEXA L. LEWIS (SBN 235867)
all@msk.com
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
Telephone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
Attorneys for Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike
Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester
Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music,
Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi Music,
Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure
Agreement Music and Rob Bourdon Music
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
12
Osama Ahmed Fahmy, an individual,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CASE NO. CV 07-05715 CAS (PJWx)
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder
v.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
DEFENDANTS ROB BOURDON,
Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), Timothy
BRAD DELSON, MIKE SHINODA,
Mosely, Kyambo Joshua, Rob Bourdon, DAVE FARRELL, JOSEPH HAHN,
Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave
CHESTER BENNINGTON, BIG BAD
Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester
MR. HAHN MUSIC,
Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music,
CHESTERCHAZ PUBLISHING,
Chesterchaz Publishing, EMI Blackwood KENJI KOBAYASHI MUSIC,
Music, Inc., EMI Music Publishing Ltd., MACHINE SHOP RECORDINGS
Kenji Kobayashi Music, Lil Lulu
LLC, NONDISCLOSURE
Publishing, Machine Shop Recordings,
AGREEMENT MUSIC AND ROB
LLC, Marcy Projects Productions II,
BOURDON MUSIC
Inc., MTV Networks Enterprises Inc.,
Nondisclosure Agreement Music,
Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc.,
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Radical
Media, Rob Bourdon Music, Roc-AFella Records, LLC, Timbaland
Productions, Inc., UMG Recordings,
Inc., Universal Music and Video
Distribution, Inc., and Warner Music
Inc.,
Defendants.
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
28
29
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
Defendants Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph
2
Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music, Chesterchaz Publishing,
3
Kenji Kobayashi Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure
4
Agreement Music and Rob Bourdon Music (“Defendants”), answer the Complaint
5
of Osama Ahmed Fahmy (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
6
7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
The allegations contained in paragraph 1 are legal conclusions to
8
which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 are
9
factual in nature, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
10
11
PARTIES
2.
Answering the first and second sentences of paragraph 2, Defendants
12
lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on
13
that basis deny each and every allegation set forth therein; and answering the third
14
sentence of paragraph 2, deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
15
3.
Answering paragraph 3, Defendants admit the allegations in the first
16
sentence of paragraph 3; lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
17
of the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 3, and on that basis deny
18
each and every allegation set forth therein; and deny each and every remaining
19
allegation set forth in paragraph 3.
20
4.
Answering paragraph 4, Defendants admit that Rob Bourdon, Brad
21
Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, and Chester Bennington are
22
entertainers who record, produce, and perform music as members of the band
23
“Linkin Park,” but lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
24
remaining allegations of paragraph 4 and on that basis deny each and every
25
allegation set forth therein.
26
5.
Defendants admit that Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Warner Music
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
Group Company, has been identified in product packaging as a record label that
28
participated in the release of an album entitled Collision Course, which contained a
29
1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
track entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut,” but deny each and every remaining
2
allegation set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 5. Answering the second
3
sentence of paragraph 5, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as
4
to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set
5
forth therein.
6
6.
Answering paragraph 6, Defendants lack information sufficient to
7
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
8
every allegation set forth therein.
9
7.
Answering paragraph 7, Defendants lack information sufficient to
10
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
11
every allegation set forth therein.
12
13
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
8.
Answering the final sentence of paragraph 8, Defendants deny each
14
and every allegation set forth therein. Answering the remainder of paragraph 8,
15
Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said
16
allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
17
9.
Answering paragraph 9, Defendants lack information sufficient to
18
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
19
every allegation set forth therein.
20
10.
Answering paragraph 10, Defendants lack information sufficient to
21
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
22
every allegation set forth therein.
23
11.
Answering paragraph 11, Defendants lack information sufficient to
24
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
25
every allegation set forth therein.
26
12.
Answering paragraph 12, Defendants lack information sufficient to
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
28
every allegation set forth therein.
29
2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
13.
Answering paragraph 13, Defendants lack information sufficient to
2
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
3
every allegation set forth therein.
4
14.
Answering paragraph 14, Defendants admit that, in or about July
5
2004, Linkin Park and Jay-Z performed a concert at the Roxy Theater in West
6
Hollywood; that, during said concert Jay-Z and Linkin Park performed a song
7
entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut;” and that, in approximately late November 2004, a
8
work entitled Collision Course, which jointly packaged a DVD recording of said
9
concert and a CD containing an in-studio recording of “Big Pimpin’/Papercut,”
10
was released, which continues to be distributed today. Defendants deny each and
11
every remaining allegation set forth in paragraph 14.
12
15.
Answering paragraph 15, Defendants lack information sufficient to
13
form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and
14
every allegation set forth therein.
15
16.
Answering the first sentence of paragraph 16, Defendants deny each
16
and every allegation set forth therein. Answering the second sentence of paragraph
17
16, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said
18
allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
19
17.
The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are legal conclusions to
20
which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 17 are
21
factual in nature, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the
22
truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set forth
23
therein.
24
18.
The allegations contained in paragraph 18 are legal conclusions to
25
26
1782547.1
factual in nature, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 18 are
truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set forth
28
therein.
29
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
ANSWER TO FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19.
Answering paragraph 19, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
20.
The allegations contained in paragraph 20 are not directed against
5
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 20 is required. To the extent any
6
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
7
21.
The allegations contained in paragraph 21 are not directed against
8
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 21 is required. To the extent any
9
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
10
22.
The allegations contained in paragraph 22 are not directed against
11
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 22 is required. To the extent any
12
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
13
23.
The allegations contained in paragraph 23 are not directed against
14
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 23 is required. To the extent any
15
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
16
24.
The allegations contained in paragraph 24 are not directed against
17
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 24 is required. To the extent any
18
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
19
25.
The allegations contained in paragraph 25 are not directed against
20
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 25 is required. To the extent any
21
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
22
26.
The allegations contained in paragraph 26 are not directed against
23
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 26 is required. To the extent any
24
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
25
27.
The allegations contained in paragraph 27 are not directed against
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 27 is required. To the extent any
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
28
29
4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
ANSWER TO SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28.
Answering paragraph 28, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
4
29.
5
set forth therein.
6
30.
7
set forth therein.
8
31.
9
Answering paragraph 29, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 30, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 31, Defendants admit that Linkin Park and Jay-
Z have performed “Big Pimpin’/Papercut” at venues and on occasions other than
10
the July 2004 performance at the Roxy, but deny each and every remaining
11
allegation set forth in Paragraph 31.
12
32.
13
set forth therein.
14
33.
15
set forth therein.
16
34.
17
set forth therein.
18
35.
19
set forth therein..
20
21
22
23
Answering paragraph 32, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 33, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 34, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 35, Defendants deny each and every allegation
ANSWER TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
36.
Answering paragraph 36, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
37.
The allegations contained in paragraph 37 are not directed against
24
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 37 is required. To the extent any
25
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
26
38.
The allegations contained in paragraph 38 are not directed against
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 38 is required. To the extent any
28
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
29
5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
39.
The allegations contained in paragraph 39 are not directed against
2
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 39 is required. To the extent any
3
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
4
40.
The allegations contained in paragraph 40 are not directed against
5
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 40 is required. To the extent any
6
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
7
41.
The allegations contained in paragraph 41 are not directed against
8
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 41 is required. To the extent any
9
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
10
42.
The allegations contained in paragraph 42 are not directed against
11
Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 42 is required. To the extent any
12
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
13
14
ANSWER TO FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
43.
This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order
15
of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 43 is required. To the
16
extent any answer is required, Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to
17
paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as if set forth in full herein.
18
44.
This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order
19
of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 44 is required. To the
20
extent any answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth
21
therein.
22
45.
This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order
23
of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 45 is required. To the
24
extent any answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth
25
therein.
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
46.
This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order
of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 46 is required. To the
28
29
6
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
extent any answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth
2
therein.
3
47.
This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order
4
of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 47 is required. To the
5
extent any answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth
6
therein.
7
8
9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
48.
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any of the
10
damages, injunctive or other relief sought in his Prayer for Relief, and deny each
11
and every allegation contained therein.
12
13
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)
15
16
49.
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
17
18
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Statute of Limitations)
20
21
50.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable
statute(s) of limitations.
22
23
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Standing)
25
26
51.
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action or any claim against
Defendants for the relief sought herein.
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
28
29
7
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Failure to Join Necessary and Indispensable Parties)
3
52.
The Complaint fails to name necessary or indispensable parties,
4
including persons and entities that own the allegedly infringed works, as alleged in
5
the Complaint.
6
7
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8
(Independent Creation)
9
10
53.
Defendants’ works were the result of Defendants’ independent
creation.
11
12
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(Adequate Remedy at Law)
14
54.
Plaintiff's causes of action, and each of them, and his injunctive and
15
restitution remedies, are barred in light of the fact that Plaintiff has an adequate
16
remedy at law.
17
18
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Attorneys’ Fees Not Recoverable)
20
55.
Plaintiff is barred from any recovery of attorneys’ fees, because, in
21
bringing this action, Plaintiff has not alleged any basis upon which attorneys’ fees
22
are recoverable.
23
24
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Laches)
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
56.
Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting any of his
claims for relief.
28
29
8
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Waiver)
3
4
57.
Plaintiff has, through his actions, conduct, delay, and failure to act,
waived any right to relief.
5
6
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
(Estoppel)
8
9
58.
Plaintiff is estopped by his own acts and omissions from asserting any
claims in this action.
10
11
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(De Minimis)
13
59.
To the extent any copyrightable elements from any of the allegedly
14
infringed works were used in allegedly infringing works and were not
15
independently created, such use is de minimis and not actionable.
16
17
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18
(Authorization, License, Acquiescence, Ratification, Consent)
19
60.
To the extent any of the acts or omissions averred in the Complaint
20
occurred, those acts were authorized, licensed, acquiesced in, ratified, or consented
21
to it, expressly, by implication, or by conduct.
22
23
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Lack of Willfulness)
25
26
61.
Defendants have not willfully infringed any alleged copyright in the
Plaintiff’s purported work.
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
28
29
9
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements)
3
62.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the registration, deposit, and other
4
statutory requirements that are conditions precedent to maintaining this action
5
and/or to the recovery of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.
6
7
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8
(Work for Hire)
9
10
63.
To the extent Baligh Hamdy wrote or contributed to “Khosara
Khosara,” such contribution was a work made for hire.
11
12
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(Unclean Hands)
14
64.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
15
16
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
(Good Faith)
18
19
65.
To the extent Defendants engaged in any act averred by Plaintiff, they
did so innocently and in good faith.
20
21
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
(Lack of Originality)
23
24
66.
Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred as the portion of the Plaintiff’s
work alleged to have been infringed is not original.
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
28
29
10
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Lack of Protectability)
3
4
67.
Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred as the portion of the Plaintiff’s
work alleged to have been infringed is not protectable.
5
6
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
(Forfeiture by General Publication)
8
9
68.
Plaintiff’s works are in the public domain by reason of the alleged
author’s sale of said works without affixing any copyright notice thereto.
10
11
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(Fair Use)
13
69.
To the extent any copyrightable elements from the allegedly infringed
14
work was used in allegedly infringing works and were not independently created,
15
such use constituted fair use.
16
17
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18
(Not Copyrightable Expression)
19
20
70.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because there is no
infringement of copyrightable expression.
21
22
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray:
23
24
25
1.
That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint, and that the Complaint,
and each claim for relief therein, be dismissed with prejudice;
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
2.
For Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and full costs incurred herein; and
28
29
11
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1
3.
For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2
3
4
DATED: April 3, 2008
RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN
ALEXA L. LEWIS
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
By: /s/ Alexa L. Lewis
Alexa L. Lewis
Attorneys for Defendants Rob Bourdon, Brad
Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph
Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn
Music, Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi
Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC,
Nondisclosure Agreement Music and Rob
Bourdon Music
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1
28
29
12
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?