JibJab Media Inc v. Hyundai Motor America et al

Filing 32

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: In light of plaintiff's filing its First Amended Complaint, the Court DENIES Defendants Edison Motor Cars, Inc. and Brad Benson's Motion to Dismiss 15 as moot. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

12-9591-CAS (MANx)

Title

JIBJAB MEDIA, INC. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 6, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS EDISON MOTOR CARS,
INC. AND BRAD BENSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (filed
January 10, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of February 11, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On November 8, 2012, plaintiff JibJab Media, Inc. filed suit against Hyundai
Motor America, Hub Strategy and Communication, Brad Benson, and three Hyundai auto
dealerships: Edison Motor Cars, Inc. dba Brad Benson Auto Group, Plaza Hyundai, Ltd.,
and Robert Tingley dba Larry H. Miller Hyundai of Hillsboro. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants aired various commercials that infringe upon plaintiff’s
copyrighted works, in violation of state and federal law.
On January 10, 2013, defendants Brad Benson and Edison Motor Cars filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 15. Additionally, or in the alternative,
moving defendants seek to sever and transfer plaintiff’s claims against them to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a
“response” to defendants’ motion, stating its intention to file an amended complaint on or
before January 31, 2013. Dkt. No. 17. On January 31, 2013, plaintiff filed its First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 28.
On February 4, 2013, moving defendants filed a reply in support of their motion.
Dkt. No. 31. Defendants posit that plaintiff’s FAC does not affect the validity of the
arguments they made in their motion that was directed at plaintiff’s original complaint,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

12-9591-CAS (MANx)

Date

February 6, 2013

Title

JIBJAB MEDIA, INC. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.

and therefore defendants argue that the Court should grant their motion as to the FAC.
The Court declines to do so. Because the FAC is now the operative complaint in this
case, defendants must bring a renewed motion if they seek dismissal or transfer of the
claims asserted against them.
Accordingly, in light of plaintiff’s filing its FAC, the Court DENIES defendants’
motion as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2