Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 67

STATEMENT in Response to Plaintiffs' Submission of October 8, 2013 re: Notice (Other), 66 . (Klaus, Kelly)

Download PDF
1 GLENN D. POMERANTZ (State Bar No. 112503) gl< 2 KELLY M. KLA'OS (State Bar No. 161091) kelly 3 ADAM I. KAPLAN (State Bar No. 268182) 4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 5 Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 6 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facs1mile: (213) 687-3702 7 Attorneys for Defendants . 8 Warner/Char.pell Music, Inc. and Summy-Bircliard, Inc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 13 GOOD MORNING TO YOU PRODUCTIONS CORP.; ROBERT 14 SIEGEL; RUPA MARYA; and MAJAR PRODUCTIONS, LLC; On 15 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIĀ£ INC., 19 and SUMMY-BIRCHARD, INc., Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUBMISSION OF OCTOBER 8, 2013 Date: N/A Time: N/A Courtroom: 650 (Roybal) Judge: Hon. George H. King, Chief Judge Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21856870.1 DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT lN RESPONSE T PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 8, 2013 SUBMISSION 1 Defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc. 2 (collectively, "Warner/Chappell") respectfully submit the following response to 3 Plaintiffs' October 8, 2013 submission to the Court (Dkt. No. 66). 1. 4 None of the numerous paragraphs of the Second Amended 5 Consolidated Complaint ("SAC") that Plaintiffs cite in their submission, 6 individually or collectively, set forth the two-step theory that Plaintiffs described at 7 the October 7, 2013 hearing, i.e., that (1) the scope of Warner/Chappell's copyrights 8 in Happy Birthday to You, cited in Plaintiffs' complaints, does not encompass the 9 rights that Warner/Chappell licensed to Plaintiffs; but if it does, (2) those copyrights 10 are not valid. 2. 11 Without waiving any of Warner/Chappell's arguments in the pending 12 motion to dismiss, Warner/Chappell does not object to the Court's granting 13 Plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint, provided that the only changes 14 made by this amendment are to describe Plaintiffs' two-step theory. 3. 15 As discussed at the hearing, Warner/Chappell agrees with the Court 16 that the case should be bifurcated, for case management purposes, and that it makes 17 sense for the Court to set a schedule allowing for a brief period of discovery, limited 18 solely to the copyright scope and validity issues raised by Plaintiffs' first cause of 19 action for declaratory judgment, followed by summary judgment/adjudication 20 motions limited to these issues. Warner/Chappell requests that the Court schedule a 21 case management/scheduling conference to set the timeframe and parameters for the 22 aforementioned period of discovery and motion practice. 23 4. Warner/Chappell submits that, if the Court proceeds with the case 24 management plan described above,that Warner/Chappell's pending motion to 25 dismiss be held in abeyance pending resolution of the aforementioned summary 26 judgment/adjudication motions, and that Warner/Chappell's time for answering or 27 otherwise responding to the SAC (or any amended complaint that Plaintiffs file in 28 accordance with their pending request) be stayed pending resolution ofthe summary 21856870.1 -1- DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT IN RESPONSE T PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 8, 2013 SUBMISSIO 1 judgment/adjudication motions, at which point in time the Court could resolve the 2 preemption and other issues that Warner/Chappell's pending motion raises. 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 DATED: October 9, 2013 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 6 7 Is! Kelly M Klaus KELLY M. KLAUS Attorneys for Defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc. By: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21856870.1 -2- DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT IN RESPONSE T PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 8, 2013 SUBMISSIO

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?