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)

Download PDF
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?