Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 258

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND Amended Complaint, 95 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend and File Fifth Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. Motion set for hearing on 11/30/2015 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Manifold, Betsy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

9
10
11
12

GOOD MORNING TO YOU
PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

15

WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
INC., et al.,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND AND FILE FIFTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

HAVING FOUND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING in plaintiffs Good

2 Morning To You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel, Rupa Marya d/b/a Rupa & The
3 April Fishes, and Majar Productions, LLC’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to
4 Amend and File Fifth Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
5 Procedure 15, the Court makes the following findings:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

6
7

1.

Plaintiffs propose to file a Fifth Amended Complaint that includes the

8 following changes: (i) expansion of the class period based on equitable tolling; (ii)
9 detailed allegations regarding delayed discovery, concealment of the truth regarding
10 Defendants’ (and their predecessors-in-interest) limited copyright in Happy Birthday
11 and equitable tolling; and (iii) the 1922 publication of the Happy Birthday song by
12 The Cable Car Company.
2.
Rule 15(a) allows amendment to a complaint “when justice so
13
14 requires.” In the Ninth Circuit, the policy favoring leave to amend is such that “a
15 court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of
16 Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing
17 Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)
18 (finding the policy favoring amendment freely “is to be applied with extreme
19 liberality.”)). See also Bernhardt v. County of L.A., No. CV 99-10121-GHK, 2009
20 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23115, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2009). “Leave to amend lies
21 within the sound discretion of the trial court.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833
22 F.2d 183, 185-86 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “The
23 underlying purpose of Rule 15 . . . [is] to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than
24 on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.
25 2000) (en banc).
26

3.

The Supreme Court has held that motions to amend may be denied for

27 the following reasons: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part
28 of the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4)

-1-

1

undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (5) futility of the proposed amendment.

2

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). See also Sonoma County, 708 F.3d at

3

1117; Owens, 244 F.3d at 712. The Court finds that none of these reasons are present

4

here.
ORDER

5
6

THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

7

of Law, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and File Fifth Amended Complaint

8

is GRANTED, as follows:

9

1.

10
11

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Fifth Amended Complaint previously lodged with
the Court shall be filed within two (2) days of the entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

14

_____________________________________
HON. GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

WARNER/CHAPPELL:22351 Proposed Order LTA

-2-