Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc
Filing
72
[DOCUMENT STRICKEN AS DUPLICATIVE ] - Third Amended Consolidated Complaint For Declaratory Judgment et al.; jury trial demanded filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel (Manifold, Betsy) Modified on 11/12/2013 (shb).
1
2
3
4
5
6
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
manifold@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
Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION
10
11
12
13
14
15
GOOD MORNING TO YOU
PRODUCTIONS CORP.;
ROBERT SIEGEL;
RUPA MARYA; and
MAJAR PRODUCTIONS, LLC;
On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated,
16
Plaintiffs,
17
18
19
20
v.
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
INC.; and SUMMY-BIRCHARD,
INC.,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT FOR:
(1) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(28 U.S.C. § 2201);
(2) DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES (28 U.S.C. § 2202);
(3) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S
UNFAIR COMPETITION LAWS
(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.);
(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(5) COMMON LAW MONEY HAD
AND RECEIVED;
(6) RESCISSION FOR FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION; and
(7) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S
FALSE ADVERTISING LAWS
(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.)
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
Plaintiffs, Good Morning to You Productions Corp. (“GMTY”), Robert
2
Siegel (“Siegel”), Rupa Marya d/b/a/ Rupa Marya & The April Fishes (“Rupa”), and
3
Majar Productions, LLC (“Majar”) (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of
4
themselves and all others similarly situated, by their undersigned attorneys, as and
5
for their Third Amended Consolidated Complaint For: (1) Declaratory Judgment (28
6
U.S.C. § 2201); (2) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages (28 U.S.C. §
7
2202); (3) Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Laws (Bus. & Prof. Code
8
§§ 17200 et seq.); (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Common Law Money Had and
9
Received; (6) Rescission for Failure of Consideration; and (7) Violations of
10
California’s False Advertising Laws (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.) against
11
defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (“Warner/Chappell”) and Summy-
12
Birchard, Inc. (“SBI”) (collectively “Defendants”), hereby allege as follows:
13
14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
15
28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 with respect to claims seeking declaratory
16
and other relief arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; pursuant
17
to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.; pursuant to the Class
18
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant
19
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the entire case or controversy.
20
2.
The Court has personal jurisdiction and venue is proper in this District
21
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), in that the claims arise in
22
this Judicial District where both Defendants’ principal places of business are located
23
and where they regularly conduct business.
24
3.
Paragraph 8 of the Film and Synchronization and Performance License
25
(“Synchronization License”) by and between assignee Plaintiff Siegel and defendant
26
Warner/Chappell states: “this license has been entered into in, and shall be
27
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of California, and any action or
28
-1-
1
proceeding concerning the interpretation and/or enforcement of this license shall be
2
heard only in the state or federal courts situated in Los Angeles county. . . .”
3
Defendant Warner/Chappell requires any action or proceeding related thereto to be
4
brought in this District under the Synchronization License.
5
6
INTRODUCTION
4.
This is an action to declare that Defendants do not own a copyright to
7
the world’s most popular song, Happy Birthday to You (the “Song”), that if
8
Defendants own any copyright to the Song, it is limited to four specific piano
9
arrangements or an obscure second verse that has no commercial value, that any
10
other copyright to the Song that Defendants may own or ever owned are invalid or
11
have expired, and that the Song is dedicated to public use and in the public domain;
12
and in turn to declare that Defendants must return millions of dollars of unlawful
13
licensing fees collected by defendant Warner/Chappell pursuant to its wrongful
14
assertion of copyright ownership of the Song.
15
5.
According to the United States Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”),
16
a “musical composition consists of music, including any accompanying words, and
17
is normally registered as a work of the performing arts.” Copyright Office Circular
18
56A, “Copyright Registration of Musical Compositions and Sound Recordings,” at 1
19
(Feb. 2012) (available at www.copyright.gov/circs/circ.56a.pdf). The author of a
20
musical composition generally is the composer, and the lyricist (if a different
21
person). Id.
22
6.
More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of
23
Happy Birthday to You is set was first published, defendant Warner/Chappell
24
boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy
25
Birthday to You, and with that copyright the exclusive right to authorize the Song’s
26
reproduction, distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal copyright
27
law. At all relevant times, Warner/Chappell declared in the first two sentences on
28
the “About Us” page of its website that “Warner/Chappell Music is [Warner Music
-2-
1
Group]’s award-winning global music publishing company. The Warner/Chappell
2
Music catalog includes standards such as ‘Happy Birthday To You’. . .” (available
3
at www.warnerchappell.com/about.jsp?currenttab=about_us as of June 18, 2013).
4
Defendant Warner/Chappell either has silenced those wishing to record or perform
5
Happy Birthday to You, or has extracted millions of dollars in unlawful licensing
6
fees from those unwilling or unable to challenge its ownership claims.
7
7.
Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to 1893, shows
8
that if defendant Warner/Chappell owned or owns any copyrights to Happy Birthday
9
to You, those rights were and are limited to the extremely narrow right to reproduce
10
and distribute specific piano arrangements for the Song, or an obscure second verse
11
that has no commercial value, which were published in 1935. That same evidence
12
also shows that if Warner/Chappell ever owned a copyright to any other part of the
13
Song, it was invalid or expired no later than 1921. Significantly, no court has ever
14
adjudicated either the scope or validity of the Defendants’ claimed interest in Happy
15
Birthday to You, nor in the Song’s melody or its familiar lyrics, which are,
16
themselves, independent works.
17
8.
Various legal scholars and copyright and music industry experts agree
18
with the foregoing, questioning the validity of Defendants’ assertion of copyright in
19
the Song, and supporting the conclusion that Happy Birthday properly exists in the
20
public domain. For example, Professor Robert Brauneis, Professor of Law and Co-
21
Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program at George Washington
22
University, and a leading legal scholar in intellectual property law, has stated that it
23
is “doubtful” that Happy Birthday “is really still under copyright.”
24
9.
Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa, and Majar on behalf of themselves and
25
all others similarly situated, seek a declaration that Happy Birthday to You is
26
dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as monetary damages and
27
restitution of all the unlawful licensing fees that defendants have improperly
28
collected from Plaintiffs and all other Class members.
-3-
1
2
PLAINTIFFS
10.
Plaintiff GMTY is a New York corporation with its principal place of
3
business located in New York County. Under a claim of copyright by defendant
4
Warner/Chappell, on or about March 26, 2013, GMTY paid defendant
5
Warner/Chappell the sum of $1,500 for a synchronization license to use Happy
6
Birthday to You and on or about April 24, 2013, GMTY entered into a
7
synchronization license with Warner/Chappell, as alleged more fully herein.
8
11.
Plaintiff Robert Siegel is the assignee of BIG FAN PRODUCTIONS,
9
INC. (“BIG FAN”), an inactive New York corporation and a resident of New York,
10
New York. Under a claim of copyright by defendant Warner/Chappell, on or about
11
September 1, 2009, BIG FAN paid to defendant Warner/Chappell the sum of $3,000
12
for the Synchronization Licenses to use Happy Birthday to You, as alleged more
13
fully herein. Plaintiff Siegel, the then-President of BIG FAN, was assigned BIG
14
FAN’s rights and claims, including those pertaining to the Synchronization License
15
pursuant to Paragraph 7 thereof between defendant Warner/Chappell and BIG FAN,
16
entered into on or about July 20, 2009.
17
12.
Plaintiff Rupa is a musician and leader of the band entitled “Rupa &
18
The April Fishes” (“RTAF”), and a member of the American Society of Composers,
19
Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”). Plaintiff Rupa is a resident of San Mateo
20
County, California. RTAF recorded Happy Birthday to You at a live show in San
21
Francisco, California, on April 27, 2013. Under a claim of copyright by defendant
22
Warner/Chappell, on or about June 17, 2013, Plaintiff Rupa d/b/a RTAF paid to
23
defendant Warner/Chappell the sum of $455 for a compulsory license pursuant to 17
24
U.S.C. § 115 (commonly known as a “mechanical license”) to use Happy Birthday
25
to You, as alleged more fully herein.
26
13.
Plaintiff Majar is a Los Angeles-based film production company that
27
produced the award winning documentary film “No Subtitles Necessary: László &
28
Vilmos” (hereafter, “No Subtitles Necessary” or the “Film”). The Film follows the
-4-
1
lives of renowned cinematographers László Kovacs (“Kovacs”) and Vilmos
2
Zsigmond (“Zsigmond”) from escaping the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary to the
3
present day. As film students in Hungary, Kovacs and Zsigmond shot footage of the
4
Russian invasion of Budapest and subsequently risked their lives to smuggle it out
5
of the country. They fled to America and settled in Hollywood, eventually saving
6
enough money to buy their own 16mm camera to begin shooting movies. Both rose
7
to prominence in the late 1960’s and 1970’s having shot films such as “Easy Rider,”
8
“Five Easy Pieces,” “McCabe and Mrs. Miller,” “Deliverance,” “Paper Moon,” and
9
“Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” No Subtitles Necessary tells the story of
10
their lives and careers.
11
12
DEFENDANTS
14.
Defendant Warner/Chappell is a Delaware corporation with its
13
principal place of business located at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles,
14
California 90025 and regularly conducts business within this Judicial District.
15
15.
Defendant SBI is a Wyoming corporation with its principal place of
16
business located at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025.
17
SBI regularly conducts business within this Judicial District, where it may be found.
18
On information and belief, SBI is a subsidiary of Warner/Chappell, having been
19
acquired by Warner/Chappell in or around 1998.
20
21
22
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Good Morning to All and the Popular Adoption of Happy Birthday to You
16.
Sometime prior to 1893, Mildred J. Hill (“Mildred Hill”) and her sister
23
Patty Smith Hill (“Patty Hill”) (Mildred and Patty Hill are collectively referred to as
24
the “Hill Sisters”) authored a written manuscript containing sheet music for 73
25
songs composed or arranged by Mildred Hill, with words written and adapted by
26
Patty Hill.
27
17.
28
The manuscript included Good Morning to All, a song written by the
Hill Sisters.
-5-
1
18.
On or about February 1, 1893, the Hill Sisters sold and assigned all
2
their right, title, and interest in the written manuscript to Clayton F. Summy
3
(“Summy”) in exchange for 10 percent of retail sales of the manuscript. The sale
4
included the song Good Morning to All.
5
19.
In or around 1893, Summy published the Hill Sisters’ written
6
manuscript with an introduction by Anna E. Bryan (“Bryan”) in a songbook titled
7
Song Stories for the Kindergarten. Song Stories for the Kindergarten included the
8
song Good Morning to All.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20.
On or about October 16, 1893, Summy filed a copyright application
(Reg. No. 45997) with the Copyright Office for Song Stories for the Kindergarten.
21.
On the October 16, 1893, copyright application, Summy claimed to be
the copyright’s proprietor, but not the author of the copyrighted works.
22.
Song Stories for the Kindergarten bears a copyright notice reading
“Copyright 1893, by Clayton F. Summy.”
23.
As proprietor of the 1893 copyright in Song Stories for the
16
Kindergarten, Summy asserted copyright ownership in the compilation of songs, as
17
well as, the individual songs published therein, including Good Morning to All.
18
24.
The lyrics to Good Morning to All are:
19
Good morning to you
20
Good morning to you
21
Good morning dear children
22
Good morning to all.
23
24
25.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You are set to the melody from the
25
song Good Morning to All. As nearly everyone knows, the lyrics to Happy Birthday
26
to You are:
27
28
Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday to You
-6-
1
Happy Birthday dear [NAME]
2
Happy Birthday to You.
3
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
26.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not published in Song Stories
for the Kindergarten.
27.
On or about January 14, 1895, Summy incorporated the Clayton F.
Summy Company (“Summy Co.”) under the laws of the State of Illinois for a
limited term of 25 years. On that same date, Summy purported to assign all his
right, title, and interest in Song Stories for the Kindergarten to Summy Co.
28.
In 1896, Summy published a new, revised, illustrated, and enlarged
version of Song Stories for the Kindergarten, which contained eight previously
unpublished songs written by the Hill Sisters as well as illustrations by Margaret
Byers.
29.
On or about June 18, 1896, Summy filed a copyright application (Reg.
No. 34260) with the Copyright Office for the 1896 publication of Song Stories for
the Kindergarten.
30.
On its June 18, 1896, copyright application, Summy again claimed to
be the copyright’s proprietor, but (again) not the author of the copyrighted works.
31.
The 1896 version of Song Stories for the Kindergarten bears a
copyright notice reading “Copyright 1896, by Clayton F. Summy.”
32.
As proprietor of the 1896 copyright in the revised Song Stories for the
Kindergarten, Summy owned the rights to both the songbook as a compilation and
the individual songs published therein, including Good Morning to All.
33.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not published in the 1896
version of Song Stories for the Kindergarten.
34.
In 1899, Summy Co. published 17 songs from the 1893 version of Song
Stories for the Kindergarten in a songbook titled Song Stories for the Sunday
School. One of those songs included in Song Stories for the Sunday School was
-7-
1
Good Morning to All. And yet again, neither the song Happy Birthday nor the lyrics
2
to Happy Birthday were published in “Song Stories for the Sunday School.”
3
4
35.
(Reg. No. 20441) with the Copyright Office for Song Stories for the Sunday School.
5
6
On or about March 20, 1899, Summy Co. filed a copyright application
36.
On the 1899 copyright application, Summy Co. claimed to be the
copyright’s proprietor, but not the author of the copyrighted works.
7
37.
8
This collection of songs has been published in response to earnest requests
9
from various sources. They are taken from the book, Song Stories for the
10
Kindergarten by the MISSES HILL, and are the copyright property of the
11
publishers. (Emphasis added).
12
38.
13
The title page to Song Stories for the Sunday School states:
Song Stories for the Sunday School bears a copyright notice reading
“Copyright 1899 by Clayton F. Summy Co.”
14
39.
As proprietor of the 1899 copyright in Song Stories for the Sunday
15
School, Summy Co. owned the rights to both the songbook as a compilation and the
16
individual songs published therein, including Good Morning to All.
17
18
40.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not published in Song Stories
for the Sunday School.
19
41.
Even though the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You and the song Happy
20
Birthday to You had not been fixed in a tangible medium of expression, the public
21
began singing Happy Birthday to You no later than the early 1900s.
22
42.
For example, in the January 1901 edition of Inland Educator and
23
Indiana School Journal, the article entitled “First Grade Opening Exercises”
24
described children singing the words “happy birthday to you,” but did not print the
25
Song’s lyrics or melody.
26
43.
In or about February, 1907, Summy Co. republished the song Good
27
Morning to All as an individual musical composition.
28
///
-8-
1
2
44.
(Reg. No. 142468) with the Copyright Office for the song Good Morning to All.
3
4
45.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You do not appear in the 1907
publication of Good Morning to All.
5
6
On or about February 7, 1907, Summy Co. filed a copyright application
46.
In 1907, Fleming H. Revell Co. (“Revell”) published the book Tell Me
a True Story, arranged by Mary Stewart, which instructed readers to:
7
Sing: “Good-bye to you, good-bye to you, good-bye dear children, good-
8
bye to you.” Also: “Good-bye dear teacher.” (From “Song Stories for the
9
Sunday-School,” published by Summy & Co.)
10
Sing: “Happy Birthday to You.” (Music same as “Good-bye to You.”)
11
12
47.
A239690) with the Copyright Office for Tell Me a True Story.
13
14
15
On or about May 18, 1909, Revell filed an application (Reg. No.
48.
Tell Me a True Story did not include the lyrics to Happy Birthday to
49.
Upon information and belief, the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You
You.
16
(without the sheet music for the melody) were first published in 1911 by the Board
17
of Sunday Schools of the Methodist Episcopal Church (“Board of Sunday Schools”)
18
in The Elementary Worker and His Work, by Alice Jacobs and Ermina Chester
19
Lincoln, as follows:
20
Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday, dear John,
21
Happy birthday to you. (Sung to the same tune as the “Good Morning”)
22
[NOTE: The songs and exercises referred to in this program may be found in
23
these books:... “Song Stories for the Sunday School,” by Patty Hill.]
24
50.
On or about January 6, 1912, the Board of Sunday Schools filed a
25
copyright application (Reg. No. A303752) with the Copyright Office for The
26
Elementary Worker and His Work.
27
28
51.
The Elementary Worker and His Work attributed authorship or
identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the book. Significantly, it
-9-
1
did not attribute authorship or identify any copyright for the song Happy Birthday to
2
You.
3
52.
On or about January 14, 1920, Summy Co. was dissolved in accordance
4
with its limited (not perpetual) 25-year term of incorporation. Summy Co. did not
5
extend or renew the 1893 (Reg. No. 45997) or 1907 (Reg. No. 142468) copyrights
6
prior to its dissolution.
7
53.
Upon information and belief, by 1912, various companies (such as
8
Cable Company Chicago) had begun producing unauthorized printings of sheet
9
music which included the song known today as Happy Birthday (i.e., the melody of
10
Good Morning to You with the lyrics changed to those of Happy Birthday). On
11
information and belief, Cable Company Chicago never asserted copyright ownership
12
in Happy Birthday.
13
Copyright History of Good Morning to All
14
54.
Pursuant to Section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, the renewal rights
15
to the original Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Song Stories for the Sunday
16
School, and Good Morning to All were vested solely in their proprietor, Summy Co.
17
55.
Pursuant to Section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, the renewal rights
18
to the revised Song Stories for the Kindergarten were vested solely in their
19
proprietor, Summy Co.
20
56.
The copyright to the original Song Stories for the Kindergarten (Reg.
21
No. 45997) was not extended by Summy Co., and consequently expired on October
22
16, 1921. The original Song Stories for the Kindergarten, including the song Good
23
Morning to All, became dedicated to public use and fell into the public domain by
24
no later than that date.
25
57.
The copyright to the revised Song Stories for the Kindergarten (Reg.
26
No. 34260) was not extended by Summy, and consequently expired on June 18,
27
1924. The revised Song Stories for the Kindergarten became dedicated to public
28
use and fell into the public domain by no later than that date.
- 10 -
1
58.
In or around March 1924, the sheet music (with accompanying lyrics)
2
to Happy Birthday to You was in a songbook titled Harvest Hymns, published,
3
compiled, and edited by Robert H. Coleman (“Coleman”). Upon information and
4
belief, Harvest Hymns was the first time the melody and lyrics of Happy Birthday to
5
You were published together.
6
59.
Coleman did not claim authorship of the song entitled Good Morning
7
to You or the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. Although Harvest Hymns attributed
8
authorship or identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the book, it
9
did not attribute authorship or identify any copyright for Good Morning to You or
10
11
Happy Birthday to You.
60.
On or about March 4, 1924, Coleman filed a copyright application
12
(Reg. No. A777586) with the Copyright Office for Harvest Hymns. On or about
13
February 11, 1952, the copyright was renewed (Reg. No. R90447) by the Sunday
14
School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
15
61.
On or about April 15, 1925, Summy incorporated a new Clayton F.
16
Summy Co. (“Summy Co. II”) under the laws of the State of Illinois.
17
information and belief, Summy Co. II was not a successor to Summy Co.; rather, it
18
was incorporated as a new corporation.
19
62.
Upon
The sheet music (with accompanying lyrics) to Happy Birthday to You
20
was again published in 1928 in the compilation Children’s Praise and Worship,
21
compiled and edited by A.L. Byers, Bessie L. Byrum, and Anna E. Koglin (“Byers,
22
Byrum & Koglin”). Upon information and belief, Children’s Praise and Worship
23
was the first time the song was published under the title Happy Birthday to You.
24
63.
On or about April 7, 1928, Gospel Trumpet Co. (“Gospel”) filed a
25
copyright application (Reg. No. A1068883) with the Copyright Office for
26
Children’s Praise and Worship.
27
28
64.
Children’s Praise and Worship attributed authorship or identified the
copyrights to many of the works included in the book. Significantly, it did not
- 11 -
1
2
attribute authorship or identify any copyright for the song Happy Birthday to You.
65.
Children’s Praise and Worship did not provide any copyright notice for
3
the combination of Good Morning to All with the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You,
4
nor did it include the names of Mildred Hill or Patty Hill and did not attribute any
5
authorship or ownership to the Hill Sisters.
6
66.
Upon information and belief, the Hill Sisters had not fixed the lyrics to
7
Happy Birthday to You or the song Happy Birthday to You in a tangible medium of
8
expression, if ever, at any time before Gospel published Children’s Praise and
9
Worship in 1928.
10
67.
11
12
Upon information and belief, Summy sold Summy Co. II to John F.
Sengstack (“Sengstack”) in or around 1930.
68.
Upon information and belief, on or about August 31, 1931, Sengstack
13
incorporated a third Clayton F. Summy Co. (“Summy Co. III”) under the laws of the
14
State of Delaware.
15
successor to Summy Co. or Summy Co. II; rather, it was incorporated as a new
16
corporation.
Upon information and belief, Summy Co. III was not a
17
69.
On May 17, 1933, Summy Co. II was dissolved for failure to pay taxes.
18
70.
On July 28, 1933, Happy Birthday to You was used in the world’s first
19
singing telegram.
20
71.
On September 30, 1933, the Broadway show As Thousands Cheer,
21
produced by Sam Harris with music and lyrics written by Irving Berlin, began using
22
the song Happy Birthday to You in public performances.
23
72.
On August 14, 1934, Jessica Hill, a sister of Mildred Hill and Patty
24
Hill, commenced an action against Sam Harris in the Southern District of New
25
York, captioned Hill v. Harris, Eq. No. 78-350, claiming that the performance of
26
Happy to Birthday to You in As Thousands Cheer infringed on the Hill Sisters’ 1893
27
and 1896 copyrights to Good Morning to All. Jessica Hill asserted no claim in that
28
action regarding Happy Birthday to You, alone or in combination with Good
- 12 -
1
Morning to All.
2
73.
On January 21, 1935, Jessica Hill commenced an action against the
3
Federal Broadcasting Corp. in the Southern District of New York, captioned Hill v.
4
Federal Broadcasting Corp., Eq. No. 79-312, claiming infringement on the Hill
5
Sisters’ 1893 and 1896 copyrights to Good Morning to All. Jessica Hill asserted no
6
claim in that action regarding Happy Birthday to You, alone or in combination with
7
Good Morning to All.
8
74.
In 1934 and 1935, Jessica Hill sold and assigned to Summy Co. III
9
certain piano arrangements of Good Morning to All, including publishing, public
10
performance, and mechanical reproduction rights, copyright, and extension of
11
copyright in exchange for a percentage of the retail sales revenue from the sheet
12
music.
13
Applications for Copyright for New Musical Arrangement
14
75.
On or about December 29, 1934, Summy Co. III filed an Application
15
for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter
16
(Reg. No. E45655) with the Copyright Office for the song Happy Birthday.
17
76.
In that December 1934 Application for Copyright, Summy Co. III
18
claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Preston Ware
19
Orem (“Orem”) and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement by piano
20
solo.”
21
77.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not included on the work
22
registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E45655. The application did not
23
contain the names of the Hill Sisters and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to
24
Happy Birthday to You alone or in combination with the melody of Good Morning
25
to All.
26
78.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E45655 was
27
not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of
28
information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except
- 13 -
1
as to the arrangement itself.
79.
2
On or about February 18, 1935, Summy Co. III filed an Application for
3
Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg.
4
No. E46661) with the Copyright Office for the song Happy Birthday.
5
80.
In that February 1935 Application for Copyright, Summy Co. III
6
claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Orem and claimed
7
the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for four hands at one piano.”
8
81.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not included on the work
9
registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E46661. The application did not
10
contain the names of the Hill Sisters and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to
11
Happy Birthday to You alone or in combination with the melody of Good Morning
12
to All.
13
82.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E46661 was
14
not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of
15
information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except
16
as to the arrangement itself.
17
83.
On or about April 5, 1935, Summy Co. III filed an Application for
18
Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg.
19
No. E47439) with the Copyright Office for the song Happy Birthday.
20
84.
In that April 1935 Application for Copyright, Summy Co. III claimed
21
to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Orem and claimed the
22
copyrighted new matter as “arrangement of second piano part.”
23
85.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not included on the work
24
registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E47439.
25
contain the names of the Hill Sisters and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to
26
Happy Birthday to You alone or in combination with the melody of Good Morning
27
to All.
28
///
- 14 -
The application did not
1
86.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E47439 was
2
not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of
3
information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except
4
as to the arrangement itself.
5
87.
On or about April 5, 1935, Summy Co. III filed an Application for
6
Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg.
7
No. E47440) with the Copyright Office for the song Happy Birthday.
8
9
10
88.
In that additional April 1935 Application for Copyright, Summy Co. III
claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Orem and claimed
the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for six hands at one piano.”
11
89.
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were not included on the work
12
registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E47440. The application did not
13
contain the names of the Hill Sisters and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to
14
Happy Birthday to You alone or in combination with the melody of Good Morning
15
to All.
16
90.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E47440 was
17
not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of
18
information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except
19
as to the arrangement itself.
20
91.
On December 9, 1935, Summy Co. III filed an Application for
21
Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg.
22
No. E51988) with the Copyright Office for Happy Birthday to You.
23
92.
In that December 1935 Application for Copyright, Summy Co. III
24
claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by R.R. Forman
25
(“Forman”) and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for Unison
26
Chorus and revised text.”
27
Forman did not write the familiar first verse lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. The
28
sheet music deposited with the application credited Forman only for the
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that
- 15 -
1
arrangement and for the obscure second verse lyrics that lack commercial value, not
2
for the familiar first verse lyrics, and did not credit the Hill Sisters with writing the
3
lyrics to Happy Birthday to You.
4
93.
For the first time, the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You, including an
5
obscure second verse that lacks commercial value as the revised text, were included
6
on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51988. However,
7
the December 1935 Application for Copyright did not attribute authorship of the
8
lyrics to either of the Hill Sisters and did not claim copyright in the familiar first
9
verse lyrics to Happy Birthday to You alone or in combination with the melody of
10
11
Good Morning to All.
94.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51988 was
12
expressly limited in scope and neither claimed nor provided copyright protection to
13
the familiar lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. If and to the extent the work registered
14
with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51988 had claimed copyright protection to
15
those familiar lyrics, that work was not eligible for federal copyright protection in
16
that it consisted entirely of work that was common property and contained no
17
original authorship, except as to the sheet music arrangement itself.
18
95.
Based upon information and belief, the work registered as Reg. No.
19
E51988 was not eligible for federal copyright protection because Summy Co. III did
20
not have authorization from the author to publish any part of that work except as to
21
the arrangement and the obscure second verse.
22
96.
On December 9, 1935, Summy Co. III filed an Application for
23
Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg.
24
No. E51990) with the Copyright Office for Happy Birthday to You.
25
97.
In that additional December 1935 Application for Copyright, Summy
26
Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Orem and
27
claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement as easy piano solo, with text.”
28
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Orem did not write the familiar
- 16 -
1
lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs also allege
2
that the sheet music deposited with the application did not credit either Orem or the
3
Hill Sisters for writing the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You.
98.
4
The lyrics to Happy Birthday to You were included on the work
5
registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51990. However, the additional
6
December 1935 Application for Copyright did not attribute authorship of the lyrics
7
to either of the Hill Sisters, did not contain the names of either of the Hill Sisters,
8
and did not claim any copyright in the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You alone or in
9
combination with the melody of Good Morning to All.
10
99.
The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51990 was
11
expressly limited in scope and neither claimed nor provided copyright protection to
12
the familiar lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. If and to the extent the work registered
13
with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. E51990 had claimed copyright protection to
14
those familiar lyrics, that work was not eligible for federal copyright protection in
15
that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no
16
original authorship, except as to the sheet music arrangement itself.
17
100. Based upon information and belief, the work registered as Reg. No.
18
E51990 was not eligible for federal copyright protection because Summy Co. III did
19
not have authorization from the author to publish any part of that work except as to
20
the arrangement.
21
101. Based upon information and belief, in or about February, 1938, Summy
22
Co. III purported to grant to ASCAP the right to license Happy Birthday to You for
23
public performances and to collect fees for such use on behalf of Summy Co. III.
24
ASCAP thus began working as agent for Summy Co. III in collecting fees for
25
Summy Co. III for licensing Happy Birthday to You.
26
102. On or about June 8, 1942, Patty Hill and Jessica Hill assigned all of
27
their interest in the 1893, 1896, 1899 and 1907 copyrights to The Hill Foundation.
28
///
- 17 -
1
103. On October 15, 1942, The Hill Foundation commenced an action
2
against Summy Co. III in the Southern District of New York, captioned The Hill
3
Foundation, Inc. v. Clayton F. Summy Co., Case No. 19-377, for an accounting of
4
the royalties received by Summy Co. III for the licensing of Happy Birthday to You.
5
The Hill Foundation asserted claims under the 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907
6
copyrights for Good Morning to All and did not claim any copyright to the lyrics to
7
Happy Birthday to You, alone or in combination with the melody of Good Morning
8
to All.
9
104. On March 2, 1943, The Hill Foundation commenced an action against
10
the Postal Telegraph Cable Company in the Southern District of New York,
11
captioned The Hill Foundation, Inc. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., Case No. 20-
12
439, for infringement of the Hill Sisters’ purported 1893, 1896, and 1899 copyrights
13
to Good Morning to All. The Hill Foundation asserted claims only under the 1893,
14
1896, and 1899 copyrights for Good Morning to All and did not claim any copyright
15
to the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You, alone or in combination with the melody of
16
Good Morning to All.
17
105. Despite the filing of at least four prior cases in the Southern District of
18
New York asserting copyrights to Good Morning to All, there has been no judicial
19
determination of the validity or scope of any copyright related to Good Morning to
20
All.
21
22
106. In or about 1957, Summy Co. III changed its name to Summy-Birchard
Company.
23
107. In 1962, Summy Co. III (renamed as Summy-Birchard Company) filed
24
renewals for each of the six registrations it obtained in 1934 and 1935 (Reg. Nos.
25
E45655, E46661, E47439, E47440, E51988, and E51990), each renewal was
26
specifically and expressly confined to the musical arrangements.
27
108. In particular, on December 6, 1962, Summy Co. III filed a renewal
28
application for Reg. No. E51988, as employer for hire of Forman. Forman did not
- 18 -
1
write the familiar first verse lyrics to Happy Birthday to You or the combination of
2
those lyrics with the melody of Good Morning to All, and neither Summy Co. III nor
3
Defendants have claimed otherwise.
4
109. Also on December 6, 1962, Summy Co. III filed a renewal application
5
for Reg. No. E51990, as employer for hire of Orem. Orem did not write the lyrics to
6
Happy Birthday to You or the combination of those lyrics with the melody of Good
7
Morning to All, and neither Summy Co. III nor Defendants have claimed otherwise.
8
110. Summy-Birchard Company was renamed Birch Tree Ltd. in the 1970s
9
and was acquired by Warner/Chappell in or about 1998. On information and belief,
10
this entity now operates as “Summy Birchard, Inc.” – currently a subsidiary of
11
Warner/Chappell and Warner/Chappell’s co-defendant herein.
12
Happy Birthday to You – 100 Years Later
13
14
15
16
111. According to a 1999 press release by ASCAP, Happy Birthday to You
was the most popular song of the 20th Century.
112. The 1998 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records identified
Happy Birthday to You as the most recognized song in the English language.
17
113. Defendant Warner/Chappell currently claims it owns the exclusive
18
copyright to Happy Birthday to You based on the piano arrangements that Summy
19
Co. III published in 1935.
20
114. ASCAP provides non-dramatic public performance licenses to bars,
21
clubs, websites, and many other venues.
22
licensee the right to publicly perform any or all of the over 8.5 million songs in
23
ASCAP’s repertory in exchange for an annual fee. The non-dramatic public
24
performance license royalties are distributed to ASCAP members based on surveys
25
of performances of each ASCAP repertory song across different media. As an
26
ASCAP member and assignee of the copyrights in Happy Birthday to You,
27
Defendant Warner/Chappell obtains a share of blanket license revenue that would
28
- 19 -
ASCAP “blanket licenses” grant the
1
otherwise be paid to all other ASCAP members, in proportion to their songs’ survey
2
shares.
Plaintiff GMTY’s Use of Happy Birthday to You
3
4
5
115. Plaintiff GMTY is producing a documentary movie, tentatively titled
Happy Birthday, about the song Happy Birthday to You.
6
7
116. In one of the proposed scenes to be included in Happy Birthday, the
song Happy Birthday to You is to be sung.
8
9
117. During the production process, plaintiff GMTY learned that defendant
Warner/Chappell claimed exclusive copyright ownership to Happy Birthday to You.
10
118. Accordingly, in September 2012, plaintiff requested a quote from
11
Warner/Chappell for a synchronization license to use Happy Birthday to You from
12
Warner/Chappell’s website.
13
119. On or about September 18, 2012, defendant Warner/Chappell
14
responded to plaintiff GMTY’s inquiry by demanding that GMTY pay it the sum of
15
$1,500 and enter into a synchronization license agreement to use Happy Birthday to
16
You.
17
120. On or about March 12, 2013, defendant Warner/Chappell again
18
contacted plaintiff GMTY and insisted that GMTY was not authorized to use Happy
19
Birthday to You unless it paid the licensing fee of $1,500 and entered into the
20
synchronization license that Warner/Chappell demanded.
21
121. Because defendant Warner/Chappell notified plaintiff GMTY that it
22
claimed exclusive copyright ownership of Happy Birthday to You, GMTY faced a
23
statutory penalty of up to $150,000 under the Copyright Act if it used the song
24
without Warner/Chappell’s permission if Warner/Chappell, in fact, owned the
25
copyright that it claimed.
26
122. Faced with a threat of substantial penalties for copyright infringement,
27
on or about March 26, 2013, plaintiff GMTY was forced to and did pay defendant
28
Warner/Chappell the sum of $1,500 for a synchronization license and, on or about
- 20 -
1
April 24, 2013, GMTY was forced to and did enter into the synchronization license
2
agreement to use Happy Birthday to You.
3
Plaintiff Siegel’s Use of Happy Birthday to You
4
123. BIG FAN produced a movie titled Big Fan.
5
124. In one of the scenes in Big Fan, the familiar lyrics of the song Happy
6
Birthday to You was sung by the actors.
7
125. (a)
8
before Big Fan was released, BIG FAN retained the services of a music
9
supervisor to secure the rights to all the music that was used in the movie.
10
(b)
In the early summer of 2009, after filming was complete but
The
music
supervisor
identified
which
music
was
11
copyrighted, and advised BIG FAN that it would have to obtain a license
12
from Warner/Chappell and pay a fee to Warner/Chappell to perform
13
Happy
14
claimed to own the
15
(c)
Birthday to You in the movie because Warner/Chappell
exclusive copyright to the Song.
Reasonably relying upon the information provided by the
16
music producer regarding the copyright claim by Warner/Chappell, BIG
17
FAN reasonably believed that Warner/Chappell owned the copyright to
18
Happy Birthday to You, and would have to obtain a synchronization
19
license from and pay a fee to Warner/Chappell to use the Song in the
20
movie.
21
126. Accordingly, in July 2009, BIG FAN requested that the music
22
supervisor obtain a quote from Warner/Chappell for a Synchronization License to
23
use Happy Birthday to You in Big Fan.
24
127. On or about July 20, 2009, defendant Warner/Chappell responded to
25
the music supervisor by demanding that BIG FAN pay it the sum of $3,000 and
26
enter into a synchronization license for use of Happy Birthday to You.
27
128. Because Defendant Warner/Chappell notified BIG FAN through the
28
music supervisor that it claimed exclusive copyright ownership of Happy Birthday
- 21 -
1
to You, BIG FAN faced a statutory penalty of $150,000 under the Copyright Act if
2
BIG
3
Warner/Chappell, in fact, owned the copyright that it claimed.
FAN
used
the
Song
without
Warner/Chappell’s
permission
and
4
129. On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff Siegel as President of BIG FAN executed
5
the synchronization license with Warner/Chappell and agreed to pay $3,000 based
6
upon Big Fan’s theatrical release.
7
130. (a)
8
infringement, on or about September 1, 2009, BIG FAN was forced to, and
9
did, pay defendant Warner/Chappell the sum of $3,000 pursuant to the
10
11
Faced with a threat of substantial penalties for copyright
synchronization license.
(b)
BIG FAN, the music producer it hired, and Plaintiff Siegel
12
did not know, and had no reason to know, that Warner/Chappell did not
13
own any copyright to Happy Birthday to You, that the rights
14
Warner/Chappell could claim were limited just to the piano arrangements
15
or the obscure second verse of the Song (which was not performed in Big
16
Fan), or that any copyright other than that was invalid or expired.
17
(c)
BIG FAN, the music producer it hired, and Plaintiff Siegel
18
had no reason to question Warner/Chappell’s claim to own the copyright
19
to the Song.
20
(d)
Warner/Chappell did not specify which registration(s) or
21
renewal(s) thereof under which it claimed a copyright to Happy Birthday
22
to You, and thus BIG FAN, the music producer it hired, and Plaintiff
23
Siegel could not investigate Warner/Chappell’s claim to determine
24
whether Warner Chappell owned the copyright it claimed or whether that
25
copyright was valid.
26
(e)
The commencement of this action on or about June 13, 2013,
27
was widely reported in the press. Prior to the date when the press first
28
reported the claims asserted herein, no one in the position of BIG FAN, the
- 22 -
1
music producer hired by BIG FAN, or Plaintiff Siegel would know, or
2
have any reason to know, that Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim for
3
Happy Birthday to You was in doubt.
4
(f)
Plaintiff Siegel learned of the commencement of this action
5
on or about June 14, 2013, from the press reports. Before then, BIG FAN,
6
the music producer it hired, and Plaintiff Siegel did not know, and had no
7
reason to know, that Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim for Happy
8
Birthday to You had been disputed by anyone or was in doubt.
9
(g)
Shortly thereafter, on or about June 19, 2013, and
10
significantly less than three years after he knew or reasonably could or
11
should have known that Warner/Chappell does not own a copyright to the
12
Song, or that its copyright is not valid, plaintiff Siegel commenced a
13
separate class action in Los Angeles County pursuant to the terms of the
14
Synchronization License.
15
Rupa’s Performance of Happy Birthday to You
16
131. Plaintiff Rupa d/b/a RTAF recorded the song Happy Birthday to You at
17
a live show in San Francisco, to be released as part of a “live” album. She learned
18
that defendant Warner/Chappell claimed exclusive copyright ownership to Happy
19
Birthday to You, including the right to issue mechanical licenses.
20
132. Section 115 of the Copyright Act provides for compulsory licenses for
21
the distribution of phonorecords and digital phonorecord deliveries (i.e., Web-based
22
“downloads”) of musical compositions. Failure to obtain such a license prior to
23
distribution of a cover version of a song constitutes a copyright infringement subject
24
to the full remedies of the Copyright Act.
25
133. Accordingly, on June 17, 2013, Plaintiff Rupa provided a Notice of
26
Intention to Obtain Compulsory License to Warner/Chappell and paid
27
Warner/Chappell $455 for a mechanical license for the reproduction and distribution
28
of 5,000 copies of the Song.
- 23 -
1
Plaintiff Majar Use of Happy Birthday to You
2
134. (a) Plaintiff Majar produced the Film entitled “No Subtitles
3
Necessary: László & Vilmos.” The Film follows the lives of renowned
4
cinematographers László Kovacs (“Kovacs”) and Vilmos Zsigmond
5
(“Zsigmond”) from escaping the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary to the
6
present day.
7
(b)
Plaintiff Majar wished to use the Happy Birthday to You in
8
the opening scene of the Film, wherein Zsigmond and others sang the
9
Song to Kovacs in a celebration of Kovacs’ life and the friendship of the
10
11
two, thereby setting the tone for the Film.
(c)
In or around the fall of 2008, during production of the Film,
12
Plaintiff Majar learned from the music clearance supervisor working on
13
the Film that defendant Warner/Chappell claimed exclusive copyright
14
ownership to Happy Birthday to You, including for purposes of issuing
15
synchronization licenses, and that if Majar wished to include the Song in
16
the Film, a license would have to be procured and a fee be paid to
17
Warner/Chappell. The director of the Film, James Chressanthis, spoke to
18
experienced producers in the industry, who confirmed that it was common
19
knowledge within the entertainment industry that Warner/Chappell widely
20
claimed exclusive copyright ownership of the Song.
21
(d)
Accordingly, upon making the final determination to include
22
use of the Song in the Film, Plaintiff Majar proceeded to obtain a license
23
for the Song from Warner/Chappell. Indeed, Warner/Chappell held itself
24
out to Plaintiff Majar as the exclusive owner of the copyright in the Song
25
(although it did not specify which registration number(s) or renewal
26
number(s) under which it claimed to own a copyright). Thus, on or about
27
October 29, 2009, Plaintiff Majar paid to defendant Warner/Chappell the
28
sum of $5,000 for a synchronization license to use Happy Birthday in the
- 24 -
1
Film. At the time, Plaintiff Majar did not question and had no reason to
2
question Warner/Chappell’s claim of copyright ownership.
3
Plaintiff Majar is informed and believes that Warner/Chappell continued to
4
hold itself out as the exclusive copyright owner of the Song for years after
5
Majar licensed it.
(e)
6
Moreover,
Because Defendant Warner/Chappell claimed exclusive
7
copyright ownership of Happy Birthday to You, Plaintiff Majar faced a
8
statutory penalty of $150,000 under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et
9
seq., if it used the Song without Warner/Chappell’s permission and
10
Warner/Chappell, in fact, owned the copyright that it claimed.
11
(f)
12
question,
13
Warner/Chappell’s claim to own the copyright to the Song. Moreover,
14
Plaintiff Majar did not know, and had no reason to know, on October 29,
15
2009 (and continuing thereafter), that Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim
16
for Happy Birthday to You had been disputed by anyone.
17
(g)
Plaintiff Majar did not question, and had no reason to
on
October
29,
2009
(and
continuing
thereafter),
Plaintiff Majar only first learned that Warner/Chappell’s
18
claim of exclusive copyright ownership in the Song was subject to dispute
19
when news of the same was published in a New York Times article on June
20
13, 2013. Plaintiff Majar contacted counsel and joined as a plaintiff in this
21
action promptly thereafter.
22
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
23
135. Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa, and Majar bring this action pursuant to
24
Rule 23(a)-(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action on behalf of
25
themselves and all others similarly situated for the purpose of asserting the claims
26
alleged in this Consolidated Third Amended Complaint on a common basis.
27
///
28
///
- 25 -
1
136. The proposed Class is comprised of:
2
All persons or entities (excluding Defendants’ directors, officers,
3
employees, and affiliates) who entered into a license with
4
Warner/Chappell, or paid Warner/Chappell or SBI, directly or
5
indirectly through its agents, a licensing fee for the song Happy
6
Birthday to You at any time from June 18, 2009, until Defendants’
7
conduct as alleged herein has ceased.
8
137. Although Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa, and Majar do not know the
9
exact size of the Class or the identities of all members of the Class, upon
10
information and belief that information can be readily obtained from the books and
11
records of defendant Warner/Chappell. Plaintiffs believe that the Class includes
12
thousands of persons or entities who are widely geographically disbursed. Thus, the
13
proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
14
15
16
138. The claims of all members of the Class involve common questions of
law and fact including:
a.
17
18
whether Happy Birthday to You is in the public domain and dedicated
to public use;
b.
19
whether the 1935 copyrights claimed by Warner/Chappell cover the
popular lyrics to Happy Birthday to You;
20
c.
whether the 1935 copyrights claimed by Warner/Chappell are valid;
21
d.
whether Warner/Chappell is the exclusive owner of the copyright to
22
Happy Birthday to You and is thus entitled to all of the rights conferred
23
in 17 U.S.C. § 102;
24
e.
25
26
whether Warner/Chappell has the right to collect fees for the use of
Happy Birthday to You;
f.
whether Warner/Chappell has violated the law by demanding and
27
collecting fees for the use of Happy Birthday to You despite not having
28
a valid copyright to the song; and
- 26 -
1
g.
whether Warner/Chappell is required to return unlawfully obtained
2
payments to plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar and the other
3
members of the Class and, if so, what amount is to be returned.
4
5
139. With respect to Claims III and VII, the common questions of law and
fact predominate over any potential individual issues.
6
140. Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar’s claims are typical of the
7
claims of all other members of the Class and plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and
8
Majar’s interests do not conflict with the interests of any other member of the Class,
9
in that plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were subjected to the same
10
unlawful conduct.
11
141. Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar are committed to the
12
vigorous prosecution of this action and have retained competent legal counsel
13
experienced in class action and complex litigation.
14
142. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and, together with
15
their attorneys, are able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
16
Class and its members.
17
143. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair, just,
18
and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted herein. Joinder of all members of
19
the Class is impracticable and, for financial and other reasons, it would be
20
impractical for individual members of the Class to pursue separate claims.
21
144. Moreover, the prosecution of separate actions by individual members
22
of the Class would create the risk of varying and inconsistent adjudications, and
23
would unduly burden the courts.
24
25
145. Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar anticipate no difficulty in the
management of this litigation as a class action.
26
27
28
- 27 -
1
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2201
3
(On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And The Class)
4
(Against All Defendants)
5
6
146. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 145 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
7
147. Plaintiffs bring these claims individually on behalf of themselves and
8
on behalf of the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
9
Civil Procedure.
10
148. Plaintiffs seek adjudication of an actual controversy arising under the
11
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., in connection with Defendants’ purported
12
copyright claim to Happy Birthday to You. Plaintiffs seek the Court’s declaration
13
that the Copyright Act does not bestow upon Warner/Chappell and/or SBI the rights
14
it has asserted and enforced against plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
15
This is because either: (a) the 1935 registrations E51988 and E51990, under which
16
Warner/Chappell claims those copyrights, and the resulting copyrights do not
17
purport to cover and do not cover the familiar lyrics to Happy Birthday to You, but
18
instead are limited just to the particular arrangements written by Forman or Orem
19
(and, in the case of E51988, the obscure second verse which has no commercial
20
value); or (b) if and to the extent that those copyrights purport to cover the familiar
21
lyrics to Happy Birthday to You, the copyrights are invalid or have expired.
22
149. Defendants assert that they are entitled to mechanical and performance
23
royalties pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 115 for the creation and distribution of
24
phonorecords and digital downloads of the composition Happy Birthday to You,
25
under threat of a claim of copyright infringement.
26
150. Defendant Warner/Chappell demanded that plaintiff GMTY enter into
27
a synchronization license agreement to use Happy Birthday to You and pay
28
Warner/Chappell the sum of $1,500 for that synchronization license based upon its
- 28 -
1
claim of copyright ownership. Warner/Chappell’s demand was coercive in nature,
2
and GMTY’s entering into the license agreement and payment of $1,500 was
3
involuntary.
4
151. Plaintiff GMTY’s claim presents a justiciable controversy because
5
plaintiff GMTY’s agreement to pay defendant Warner/Chappell and its actual
6
payment to Warner/Chappell for use of the song Happy Birthday to You in its film
7
was the involuntary result of Warner/Chappell’s assertion of a copyright and the risk
8
that plaintiff GMTY would be exposed to substantial statutory penalties under the
9
Copyright Act had it failed to enter such an agreement and pay Warner/Chappell the
10
price it demanded.
11
152. Defendant Warner/Chappell demanded that BIG FAN as assignor of
12
plaintiff Siegel enter into the Synchronization License agreement to use Happy
13
Birthday to You and pay Warner/Chappell the sum of $3,000 for that
14
Synchronization License based upon its claim of copyright ownership.
15
Warner/Chappell’s demand was coercive in nature, and BIG FAN’S entering into
16
the Synchronization License and payment of $3,000 was involuntary.
17
153. Plaintiff Siegel’s claim presents a justiciable controversy because
18
plaintiff Siegel’s agreement to pay defendant Warner/Chappell and its actual
19
payment to Warner/Chappell for use of the song Happy Birthday to You in its film
20
Big Fan, was the involuntary result of Warner/Chappell’s assertion of a copyright
21
and the risk that plaintiff Siegel would be exposed to substantial statutory penalties
22
under the Copyright Act had it failed to enter such an agreement and pay
23
Warner/Chappell the price it demanded, but then used Happy Birthday to You in its
24
film anyway.
25
154. Plaintiff Rupa’s claim presents a justiciable controversy because
26
plaintiff Rupa’s agreement to pay defendant Warner/Chappell and its actual
27
payment to Warner/Chappell for use of the song Happy Birthday to You in her
28
album, was the involuntary result of Warner/Chappell’s assertion of a copyright and
- 29 -
1
the risk that plaintiff Rupa would be exposed to substantial statutory penalties under
2
the Copyright Act had she failed to enter such an agreement and pay
3
Warner/Chappell standard mechanical license royalties it demanded, but then paid
4
for the mechanical license anyway.
5
155. Defendants demanded that Plaintiff Majar pay to Defendants a
6
licensing fee in the sum of $5,000 pursuant to Defendants’ claim of copyright
7
ownership, in order for Plaintiff Majar to use Happy Birthday in the Film.
8
Defendants’ demand was coercive in nature and Majar’s agreement to pay the fee
9
was involuntary.
10
156. Plaintiff Majar' claim presents a justiciable controversy because its
s
11
actual payment of Defendants’ demanded fee to use Happy Birthday in the Film was
12
the involuntary result of Defendants’ assertion of a copyright and the risk that
13
Plaintiff Majar would be exposed to substantial statutory penalties under the
14
Copyright Act had it failed to seek Defendants’ approval to use the Song and/or
15
failed to pay Defendants’ demanded fee.
16
157. Plaintiffs seek the Court’s determination as to whether Defendants are
17
entitled to assert ownership of the copyright to Happy Birthday to You against
18
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Copyright Act as Defendants claim, or whether Defendants
19
are wielding a false claim of ownership to inhibit Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment (and
20
the public’s use and enjoyment) of intellectual property which is rightfully in the
21
public domain.
22
158. If and to the extent that Defendants rely upon the 1893, 1896, 1899, or
23
1907 copyrights for the melody for Good Morning to All, those copyrights expired
24
or were forfeited as alleged herein.
25
159. As alleged above, the 1893 and 1896 copyrights to the original and
26
revised versions of Song Stories for the Kindergarten, which contained the song
27
Good Morning to All, were not renewed by Summy Co. or Summy and accordingly
28
expired in 1921 and 1924, respectively.
- 30 -
1
160. As alleged above, the 1893 copyright to Song Stories for the
2
Kindergarten and the 1899 copyright to Song Stories for the Sunday School, which
3
contained Good Morning to All, and the 1907 copyright to Good Morning to All
4
were not renewed by Summy Co. before Summy Co. was dissolved in 1920 and
5
accordingly, those copyrights expired in 1927 and 1935, respectively.
6
161. The 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907 copyrights to Good Morning to All
7
were forfeited by the republication of Good Morning to All in 1921 without proper
8
notice of its original 1893 copyright.
9
10
162. The copyright to Good Morning to All expired in 1921 because the
1893 copyright to Song Stories for the Kindergarten was not properly renewed.
11
163. The piano arrangements for Happy Birthday to You published by
12
Summy Co. III in 1935 (Reg. Nos. E51988 and E51990): (a) do not give
13
Warner/Chappell copyrights to the familiar lyrics to Happy Birthday to You, but
14
instead are limited just to the particular arrangements written by Forman or Orem
15
(and, in the case of E51988, the obscure second verse which has no commercial
16
value); and (b) were not eligible for federal copyright protection because those
17
works did not contain original works of authorship, except to the extent of the piano
18
arrangements themselves.
19
164. The 1934 and 1935 copyrights pertained only to the piano
20
arrangements or the obscure second verse, not to the melody or familiar first verse
21
lyrics of the song Happy Birthday to You.
22
165. The registration certificates for The Elementary Worker and His Work
23
in 1912, Harvest Hymns in 1924, and Children’s Praise and Worship in 1928, which
24
did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You to anyone, are
25
prima facie evidence that the lyrics were not authored by the Hill Sisters.
26
166. If declaratory relief is not granted, defendant Warner/Chappell will
27
continue wrongfully to assert the exclusive copyright to Happy Birthday to You at
28
least until 2030, when the current term of the copyright expires under existing
- 31 -
1
copyright law.
2
167. Plaintiffs therefore request a declaration that:
3
(a)
4
copyright to, or possess the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, or
5
publicly perform, Happy Birthday To You;
6
(b)
7
copyright to Happy Birthday to You, it is limited to four specific piano
8
arrangements or an obscure second verse that has no commercial value,
9
(c)
defendant Warner/Chappell and defendant SBI do not own the
if defendant Warner/Chappell and defendant SBI own any
any other copyright to Happy Birthday to You that defendant
10
Warner/Chappell and defendant SBI may own or ever owned are
11
invalid or have expired;
12
(d)
13
exclusive right to demand or grant a license for use of Happy Birthday
14
To You; and
15
(e)
16
to the public use.
defendant Warner/Chappell and defendant SBI do not own the
Happy Birthday to You is in the public domain and is dedicated
17
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
UPON ENTRY OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
19
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
20
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2202
21
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
22
(Against All Defendants)
23
24
168. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 167 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
25
169. Plaintiffs bring these claims individually on their own behalf and on
26
behalf of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
27
Procedure.
28
///
- 32 -
1
170. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 empowers this Court to grant, “necessary or
2
proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree . . . after reasonable notice
3
and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such
4
judgment.”
5
171. Plaintiffs and the other proposed Class members have been harmed,
6
and Defendants have been unjustly enriched, by Defendant Warner/Chappell’s
7
takings.
8
9
172. Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and the other members of the
proposed Class upon the entry of declaratory judgment upon Claim I, as follows:
10
(a)
11
from making further representations of ownership of the copyright to
12
Happy Birthday To You;
13
(b)
14
fees paid to Defendants, directly or indirectly through its agents, in
15
connection with the purported licenses it granted to Plaintiffs GMTY,
16
Siegel, Rupa and Majar and the other Class members;
17
(c)
18
directly or indirectly through its agents, from plaintiffs and the other
19
Class members in connection with its claim to ownership of the
20
copyright to Happy Birthday to You; and
21
(d)
an injunction to prevent Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI
restitution to Plaintiffs and the other Class members of license
an accounting for all monetary benefits obtained by Defendants,
such other further and proper relief as this Court sees fit.
22
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
UNFAIR BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF
24
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.
25
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
26
(Against All Defendants)
27
28
173. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 172 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
- 33 -
1
174. Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa, and Majar bring these claims
2
individually on their own behalf, and also on behalf of the Class pursuant to Rule
3
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
175. As alleged herein, Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar and the
5
other Class members have paid licensing fees to defendants Warner/Chappell and/or
6
SBI and have therefore suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a
7
result of Defendants’ conduct.
8
176. California’s Unfair Competition Laws, Business & Professions Code
9
§§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), prohibit any unlawful or unfair business act or practice.
10
177. UCL § 17200 further prohibits any fraudulent business act or practice.
11
178. Defendants’
actions,
claims,
nondisclosures,
and
misleading
12
statements, as alleged in this Complaint, were unfair, false, misleading, and likely to
13
deceive the consuming public within the meaning of UCL §§ 17200, 17500.
14
179. The conduct of Defendants in exerting control over exclusive copyright
15
ownership to Happy Birthday to You to extract licensing fees is deceptive and
16
misleading because neither Warner/Chappell nor SBI own the rights to Happy
17
Birthday to You.
18
180. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have, in fact, been
19
deceived as a result of their reasonable reliance upon Defendants’ materially false
20
and misleading statements and omissions, as alleged above.
21
181. As a result of Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent acts and practices as
22
alleged above, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered substantial
23
monetary injuries.
24
182. Plaintiffs and the other Class members reserve the right to allege other
25
violations of law which constitute other unfair or deceptive business acts or
26
practices. Such conduct is ongoing and continues to this date.
27
28
183. As a result of its deception, Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI have
been able to reap unjust revenue and profit.
- 34 -
1
184. Upon information and belief, Defendants have collected and continue
2
to collect at least $2 million per year in licensing fees for Happy Birthday to You.
3
Therefore, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate.
4
5
185. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants will continue to engage in
the above-described conduct. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.
6
186. Plaintiffs, individually on their own behalf and on behalf of the other
7
members of the Class, seek restitution and disgorgement of all money obtained from
8
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, collected as a result of unfair
9
competition, and all other relief this Court deems appropriate, consistent with UCL
10
§ 17203.
11
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12
BREACH OF CONTRACT
13
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
14
(Against All Defendants)
15
187. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every foregoing allegation as
16
though fully set forth herein.
17
188. Plaintiffs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
entered
into
license
agreements
with
Defendant
Warner/Chappell wherein Warner/Chappell represented and warranted that it and/or
its co-Defendant SBI owned the rights to Happy Birthday as licensed therein.
189. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants’ licensing
agreements are the same or substantially similar as to all Class members,
particularly with respect to Defendants’ claim of ownership of the copyright to
Happy Birthday.
190. Plaintiffs and the Class have satisfied their obligations under each such
licensing agreement with Warner/Chappell.
27
191. As alleged herein, Defendants do not own the copyright interests
28
claimed in Happy Birthday and, as a result of its unlawful and false assertions of the
- 35 -
1
same, Defendants have violated the representations and warranties made in the
2
licensing agreements, thereby materially breaching the licensing agreements.
3
4
192. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged
in an amount to be determined at trial.
5
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6
COMMON LAW FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
7
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
8
(Against All Defendants)
9
10
193. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 192 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
11
194. Within the last four years, Defendants Warner/Chappell and/or SBI
12
became indebted to Plaintiffs and all class members for money had and received by
13
Defendants for the use and benefit of Plaintiffs and class members. The money in
14
equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiffs and class members.
15
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16
RESCISSION FOR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
17
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
18
(Against All Defendants)
19
20
195. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 194 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
21
22
196. Defendants’ purported licenses were worthless and ineffective, and do
not constitute valid consideration.
23
197. The complete lack of consideration obviates any need for notice to
24
Defendants.
25
///
26
////
27
///
28
///
- 36 -
1
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
FALSE ADVERTISING LAWS IN VIOLATION OF
3
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17500, ET SEQ.
4
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
5
(Against All Defendants)
6
7
198. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 197 set forth above
as though they were fully set forth herein.
8
199. On information and belief, Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI
9
intended to induce the public to enter into an obligation related to its alleged
10
property, namely the composition Happy Birthday to You.
11
200. Defendants Warner/Chappell and/or SBI publicly disseminated
12
advertising which contained statements which were untrue and misleading and
13
which concerned the composition Happy Birthday to You, for which they
14
improperly sought and received licensing fees. Defendants knew, or in the exercise
15
of reasonable care should have known, that these statements were untrue and
16
misleading.
17
18
201. Plaintiffs and class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost
money as a result of such unfair competition.
19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
20
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar on behalf of
21
themselves and the other members of the Class, pray for judgment against
22
Defendants as follows:
23
A.
certifying the Class as requested herein;
24
B.
declaring that the song Happy Birthday to You is not protected
25
by federal copyright law, is dedicated to public use, and is in the public
26
domain;
27
C.
28
from asserting any copyright to the song Happy Birthday to You;
permanently enjoining Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI
- 37 -
1
D.
2
from charging or collecting any licensing or other fees for use of the
3
song Happy Birthday to You;
4
E.
5
Warner/Chappell and SBI unlawfully collected from Plaintiffs, the
6
other members of the Class, and ASCAP for use of the song Happy
7
Birthday to You;
8
F.
9
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class all the licensing or other
10
fees they have collected from them, directly or indirectly through its
11
agents, for use of the song Happy Birthday to You, together with
12
interest thereon;
13
G.
14
restitution for defendant Warner/Chappell and SBI’s prior acts and
15
practices;
16
H.
17
costs; and
18
I.
19
proper.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
permanently enjoining Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI
imposing a constructive trust upon the money Defendants
ordering Defendants Warner/Chappell and SBI to return to
awarding Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
Dated: November 5, 2013
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
By:
s/Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD
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
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
- 38 -
1
2
3
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
Telephone: 619/239-4599
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
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
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
DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS LLP
WILLIAM R. HILL (114954)
ANDREW S. MACKAY (197074)
DANIEL J. SCHACHT (259717)
1999 Harrison Street, 25th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Telephone: 510/451-0544
Facsimile: 510/832-1486
rock@donahue.com
andrew@donahue.com
daniel@donahue.com
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
LIONEL Z. GLANCY (134180)
lglancy@glancylaw.com
MARC L. GODINO (182689)
mgodino@glancylaw.com
KARA M. WOLKE (241521)
kwolke@glancylaw.com
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
- 39 -
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
1
2
3
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
Telephone: 949-335-3500
Facsimile: 949-251-5111
4
5
6
7
8
9
Counsel for Plaintiffs
10
11
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12
Plaintiffs GMTY, Siegel, Rupa and Majar hereby demand a trial by jury to the
13
extent that the allegations contained herein are triable by jury under Rules 38-39 of
14
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38-39 and Civil L.R. 38-1.
15
16
Dated: November 5, 2013
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
By:
s/Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD
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
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/239-4599
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
27
28
- 40 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
10
11
Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 41 -
1
DECLARATION REGARDING CONCURRENCE
2
I, Betsy C. Manifold, am the ECF User whose identification and password are
3
being used to file this Third Amended Consolidated Complaint For: (1)
4
Declaratory Judgment (28 U.S.C. § 2201); (2) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
5
and Damages (28 U.S.C. § 2202); (3) Violations of California’s Unfair
6
Competition Laws (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); (4) Breach of Contract;
7
(5) Common Law Money Had and Received; (6) Rescission for Failure of
8
Consideration; and (7) Violations of California’s False Advertising Laws (Bus.
9
& Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.). In compliance with L.R. 5-4.3.4(2)(i), I hereby
10
attest that all other Plaintiffs’ counsel have concurred in this filing’s content and
11
authorized its filing.
12
DATED: November 5, 2013
By:
/s/ Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WARNER:20338.3rd.amd.compl.
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 42 -
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?