Marcus Gray et al v. Katy Perry et al

Filing 113

MINUTES OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing date of 10/19/2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' unopposed request for leave to file a second amended complaint 110 . Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS(JCx)

Title

MARCUS GRAY (P/K/A FLAME), ET AL. V. KATHERYN
ELIZABETH HUDSON (P/K/A/ KATY PERRY), ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 13, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 110, filed September 18, 2015)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of October
19, 2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs Marcus Gray (p/k/a Flame), Emanuel Lambert, and
Chike Ojukwu (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed this action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against defendants Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson
(p/k/a Katy Perry), Jordan Houston (p/k/a Juicy J), Lukasz Gottwald (p/k/a Dr. Luke),
Sarah Theresa Hudson, Karl Martin Sandberg (p/k/a Max Martin), Henry Russell Walter
(p/k/a Cirkut), and Capitol Records, LLC (“Capitol Records”) (collectively,
“defendants”). In brief, the action is brought pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (the
“Copyright Act”) and alleges infringement of plaintiffs’ copyright in their song, “Joyful
Noise,” by defendants’ licensing, recording, sales, broadcasts, and performance of their
allegedly infringing song, “Dark Horse.” See Dkt. 28, First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”).
On July 23, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ FAC as to all defendants, besides
Capitol Records, for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. 79. In addition, the Court
granted Capitol Records’s motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, reasoning as follows:
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS(JCx)

October 13, 2015

Title

MARCUS GRAY (P/K/A FLAME), ET AL. V. KATHERYN
ELIZABETH HUDSON (P/K/A/ KATY PERRY), ET AL.
Importantly, because the Court will grant the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants Perry and the Individual
Defendants, the remaining Defendant would be Capitol [Records].
Presumably, Plaintiffs will refile their action against Perry and the
Individual Defendants in a forum which would have personal
jurisdiction over these Defendants, being either New York or
California. Thus, the possibility of duplicative actions based on the
same salient facts would result. Transferring this action to a Court
that could preside over all claims against Perry, the Individual
Defendants and Capitol [Records] makes sound judicial sense in terms
of judicial economy and consistent judgments. Capitol [Records] has
presented evidence that it has no offices in Missouri, its principal
offices are located in New York and California, thus, witnesses and
documents relevant to this action would be located at these offices, the
creation of the disputed song occurred in California and Sweden and
the distribution of Dark Horse was directed from Capitol [Records]’s
offices in New York and California. The Individual Defendants have
declared that the creation of the song occurred in California or
Sweden. Considering all of the above factors, the Court concludes
that this matter should be transferred to the Central District of
California.

Id. at 22-23. Accordingly, this case was transferred to the undersigned on July 24, 2015.
On September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 110. Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed and states that
the SAC will (1) bring the pleadings into compliance with the form and format
requirements of Local Rule 11-3; (2) add back into the lawsuit the six individual
defendants who were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction prior to the transfer of
the case to this district; and (3) add a new corporate defendant, Kitty Purry, Inc., whose
involvement in the matters in controversy purportedly came to light while this action was
pending in the Eastern District of Missouri. Motion at 6-7. Having considered plaintiffs’
arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS(JCx)

Title

MARCUS GRAY (P/K/A FLAME), ET AL. V. KATHERYN
ELIZABETH HUDSON (P/K/A/ KATY PERRY), ET AL.
II.

Date

‘O’

October 13, 2015

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, plaintiffs’ motion states that counsel for defendant Capitol
Records––the sole remaining defendant at this stage of the lawsuit––does not oppose the
motion, despite its unwillingness to stipulate to granting leave to amend. Motion at 7.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, failure to file an opposition may be deemed consent to the
granting of the motion. For reasons explained below, and particularly in light of Capitol
Records’s failure to file an opposition, the Court concludes that permitting plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint is appropriate.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that after a responsive pleading has
been filed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Where leave to amend is required, the decision whether to grant
leave to amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jordan v. County
of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S.
810 (1982). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for
leave to amend: [1] bad faith, [2] undue delay, [3] prejudice to the opposing party, [4]
futility of amendment, and [5] whether the plaintiff has previously amended the
complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir.2003)). Some factors may be weighted more
heavily than others; for example, “[s]ome courts have stressed prejudice to the opposing
party as the key factor.” Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
By amending their complaint, plaintiffs may be able to cure the defects noted in the
Court’s prior order dismissing this action for lack of personal jurisdiction as to all
defendants but Capitol Records. Specifically, in his order dismissing in part and
transferring this case to the Central District of California, the Honorable Henry Edward
Autrey concluded that plaintiffs had “failed to allege the minimum contacts with
Missouri necessary to comport with the Due Process Clause as it relates to Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendant Perry and the [other] Individual Defendants,” all of whom are
allegedly citizens of or currently residing in California, according to the complaint. Dkt.
79 at 2-3, 21. To avoid “the possibility of duplicative actions based on the same salient
facts,” Judge Autrey further concluded that “[t]ransferring this action to a Court that
could preside over all claims against Perry, the Individual Defendants and Capitol
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS(JCx)

October 13, 2015

Title

MARCUS GRAY (P/K/A FLAME), ET AL. V. KATHERYN
ELIZABETH HUDSON (P/K/A/ KATY PERRY), ET AL.

[Records] makes sound judicial sense in terms of judicial economy and consistent
judgments.” Id. at 22-23. In order for this Court to preside over all such claims in this
forum, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to grant plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ unopposed
request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4