George Clinton v. Will Adams et al

Filing 75

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Will Adams. Motion set for hearing on 4/9/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Otis D Wright II. (Grodsky, Allen)

ALLEN B. GRODSKY (SBN 111064)
GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP
2 2001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 210
Santa Monica, California 90403
3 310.315.3009 (phone)
310.315.1557 (fax)
4 [e-mail] (e-mail)
1

5

Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM ADAMS, et al.

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILL ADAMS, p/k/a will.i.am,
)
individually and d/b/a WILL.I.AM MUSIC )
PUBLISHING, an individual; ALLAN
)
PINEDA, p/k/a apl.de.ap, individually and )
d/b/a JEEPNEY MUSIC PUBLISHING, )
an individual; JAIME GÓMEZ, p/k/a
)
Taboo, individually and d/b/a NAWASHA )
NETWORKS PUBLISHING, an
)
individual; STACY FERGUSON, p/k/a
)
Fergie, an individual; GEORGE PAJON, )
JR., an individual; JOHN CURTIS, an
)
individual; UNIVERSAL MUSIC
)
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
)
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware )
corporation; WILL I AM MUSIC, INC., a )
California corporation; CHERRY LANE )
MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., )
a New York corporation; EL CUBANO
)
MUSIC, INC., a California corporation;
)
EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC INC., a
)
Connecticut corporation; TAB
)
MAGNETIC, INC., a California
)
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

27
28
-1-

Case No. CV 10-9476 ODW (PLAx)
Honorable Otis D. Wright II, Ctrm 11
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Date: April 9, 2012
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 11
Pre-Trial Conf.: May 7, 2012
Trial Date: June 5, 2012

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon

2

thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 11 of the above-entitled court,

3

located at 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants William Adams,

4

Jamie Gomez, Allan Pineda, Stacy Ferguson, will.i.am music, inc., and Tab Magnetic,

5

Inc. (the “Moving Defendants”) will move this Court, pursuant to Rule 56 of the

6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for partial summary judgment on the First Claim for

7

Relief for Copyright Infringement in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff George Clinton

8

as follows:

9

(1)

and may not recover actual damages on his copyright infringement claim;

10
11

Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, prove the existence of actual damages

(2)

Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, prove profits attributable to the

12

alleged infringement and may not recover profits on his copyright

13

infringement claim;

14

(3)

18 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

15
16
17
18

The Moving Defendants are “innocent infringers” within the meaning of

(4)

Defendants will.i.am music, inc. and Tab Magnetic, Inc. are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on all claims for relief in the Complaint.

This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

19

Authorities attached hereto, the Declarations of Craig Marshall, Deborah Mannis-

20

Gardner, Rachel Rosoff, and Allen B. Grodsky, and Exhibits submitted herewith, the

21

Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, and Proposed Statement of Decision

22

submitted herewith, and such other and further evidence as may be presented prior to

23

the hearing on the motion.

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

Compliance With Local Rule 7-3: This Motion is made following the

1
2

conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 which took place on March 2,

3

2012.1/

4
5

Dated:

March 7, 2012

GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP

6
7
8

By

9

Attorneys for Defendants William Adams,
Allan Pineda, Jamie Gomez, Stacy
Ferguson, will.i.am music, inc., and Tab
Magnetic, Inc.

10
11

// Allen B. Grodsky //
Allen B. Grodsky

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1/

Under Local Rule 7-3, the Moving Defendants would arguably have had to
wait 10 days after the conference of counsel before filing this motion. Given the law
and motion cutoff date in this case, had counsel waited the full ten days, it would have
provided only minimum notice to opposing counsel. Paragraph 6.d of the Court’s
Schedule and Case Management Order, however, states that “the Court expects that
the party moving for summary judgment will provide more than the minimum twentyeight (28) day notice.” Accordingly, Defendants have filed this motion before
expiration of the ten day period to give additional time to Plaintiff to respond.
-3-