Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc
Filing
62
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and/or Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Definition 52 In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition filed by plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. (Manifold, Betsy)
8
FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
gregorek@whafh.com
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
manifold@whafh.com
RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634)
rickert@whafh.com
MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247)
livesay@whafh.com
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/239-4599
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
9
Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page]
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
WESTERN DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, )
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
GOOD MORNING TO YOU
PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
PLAINITFFS’ REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: September 30, 2013
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Room: 650 (Roybal)
Judge: Hon. George H. King, Chief Judge
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
1
2
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
3
Plaintiffs Good Morning To You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel, Rupa
4
Marya, and Majar Productions LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully request
5
the Court take judicial notice of the documents described below in connection with,
6
and in support of, Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Second
7
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“SAC”), ECF No. 59 (filed Sept. 4,
8
2013). The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record to the extent
9
permitted by Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rule 201”). See Lee v.
10
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Rule 201(b)
11
provides that courts may take judicial notice of documents that are “not subject to
12
reasonable dispute” because they are “(1) generally known within the territorial
13
jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by
14
resort to resources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
15
I.
DOCUMENTS
16
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the
17
documents attached to the concurrently filed Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold In
18
Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss SAC (“Manifold
19
Declaration”). Specifically, these documents are as follows:
20
21
EX. NO.
Warner Music Group Corp., Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K) (Nov. 25,
22
23
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT
1.
2008), at 11-16 (identifying Happy Birthday To You as revenue
24
generating asset of nearly $2 million per annum)
25
Warner Music Group Corp., Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K) (Nov. 24,
26
27
2.
2009) at 11-15 (identifying Happy Birthday To You as revenue
generating asset of nearly $2 million per annum)
28
-1-
1
Warner Music Group Corp., Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K) (Nov. 17,
2
3.
2010) at 11-15 (identifying Happy Birthday To You as revenue
3
generating asset)
4
Warner Music Group Corp., Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K) (Dec. 18,
5
4.
2011) at 12-16 (identifying Happy Birthday To You as revenue
6
generating asset)
7
Warner Music Group Corp., Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K) (Nov. 13,
8
2012) at 12-16 (identifying Happy Birthday To You as revenue
9
5.
generating asset)
10
11
12
13
II.
ARGUMENT
14
When deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) (“Rule
15
12(b)(6)”), a court may only judicially notice documents relevant to the matter at
16
hand. See Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Co., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1109 (N.D. Cal.
17
2003) (judicial notice of facts allowed if “sufficiently relevant” to the allegations of
18
the complaint). However, “[a] court may take judicial notice of facts outside the
19
pleadings . . .[and] look beyond the complaint to matters of public record and doing
20
so does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment.” Mack v.
21
South Bay Beer Distribs., 798 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) abrogated on other
22
grounds by Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 S. Ct.
23
2166 (1991).
24
As recently noted by this Court, judicial notice is appropriate in “situations in
25
which [a] plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of a document…even though [a]
26
plaintiff [did] not explicitly allege the contents of the document in the complaint.”
27
Order re Defs. Mot. To Dismiss, Hill v. US Bank, N.A., et al., No. CV 12-6586-GHK
28
(JCx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) at 1-2, para. 3 (quoting Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d
-2-
1
1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005)) (a true and correct copy of the Court’s Order is attached
2
to the Manifold Declaration as Exhibit 6.) Here, the Defendants cannot dispute the
3
authenticity of the documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
4
(“SEC”) by Warner Music Group Corp., the parent company of defendant
5
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.
6
allegations in the SAC.
Furthermore, the content is relevant to Plaintiffs’
7
Furthermore, courts in this District routinely take judicial notice of SEC
8
filings, especially when such filings contain admissions by defendants that are
9
relevant to allegations contained in a complaint. See, e.g., Benhabib v. Hughes Elecs.
10
Corp., No. CV 04-0095-CAS (VBKx), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87500, at *21-22, n.1l
11
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007) (overruling defendants’ objections, “[T]he Court may take
12
judicial notice of the SEC 10-K statements, as they are readily available and
13
verifiable to the Court through the SEC’s website, and . . . the statements are party
14
admissions, and are therefore an exception to the hearsay rule”).
15
III.
CONCLUSION
16
Under Rule 201(b), Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court take judicial
17
notice of Exhibits 1-5 (Warner Music Group Corp. Annual Reports, SEC Form 10-K)
18
attached to the Manifold Declaration.
19
Dated: September 9, 2013
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:
/s/Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD
FRANCIS M. GREGOREK
gregorek@whafh.com
BETSY C. MANIFOLD
manifold@whafh.com
RACHELE R. RICKERT
rickert@whafh.com
MARISA C. LIVESAY
livesay@whafh.com
-3-
1
2
3
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/239-4599
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
MARK C. RIFKIN (pro hac vice)
rifkin@whafh.com
JANINE POLLACK (pro hac vice)
pollack@whafh.com
BETH A. LANDES (pro hac vice)
landes@whafh.com
GITI BAGHBAN (284037)
baghban@whafh.com
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212/545-4600
Facsimile: 212-545-4753
Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and
the Proposed Class
RANDALL S. NEWMAN PC
RANDALL S. NEWMAN (190547)
rsn@randallnewman.net
37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 212/797-3737
Facsimile: 212/797-3172
HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES
DARLING & MAH, INC.
KATHERINE J. ODENBREIT (184619)
odenbreit@huntortmann.com
TINA B. NIEVES (134384)
tina@nieves-law.com
301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
-4-
Telephone 626/440-5200
Facsimile 626/796-0107
1
2
3
DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS LLP
DANIEL J. SCHACHT
WILLIAM R. HILL (114954)
rock@donahue.com
ANDREW S. MACKAY (197074)
andrew@donahue.com
DANIEL J. SCHACHT (259717)
daniel@donahue.com
1999 Harrison Street, 25th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Telephone: 510/451-0544
Facsimile: 510/832-1486
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
LIONEL Z. GLANCY
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310/201-9150
Facsimile: 310/201-9160
info@glancylaw.com
13
14
15
16
17
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WARNER/CHAPPELL:20199
-5-
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?