Amir Shaheed-Edwards et al v. Syco Entertainment, Inc

Filing 21

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 16 ; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 18 . Defendant's Syco Entertainment, Inc.&# 039;s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Amir Shaheed-Edwards, Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo, and Mr. Edwards' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief is DENIED as moot. Further, Plaintiff Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo andPlaintiff Mr. Edwards are hereby DISMISSED as parties to the action. Plaintiff Amir Shaheed- Edwards may file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. (lc)

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

CASE NO.:

CV 17-06579 SJO (SS)

TITLE:

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

Amir Shaheed-Edwards et al v. Syco Entertainment, Inc.

DATE: December 14, 2017

========================================================================
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Victor Paul Cruz
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

Not Present

========================================================================
PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
[Docket No. 16]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Docket No. 18]
These matters are before the Court on: (1) Defendant Syco Entertainment, Inc.'s ("Defendant")
Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") filed November 20, 2017; and (2) Plaintiffs Amir Shaheed-Edwards,
Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo, and Mr. Edwards' (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief ("Relief Motion") filed December 8, 2017. Neither party
has filed an Opposition. The Court found the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument
and vacated the hearing set for December 18, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the following
reasons, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Relief Motion is DENIED.
I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action for copyright infringement on September 7, 2017 alleging that Defendant
infringed the copyright of "All My Life," a musical composition owned and authored by Plaintiffs.
(See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on
November 7, 2017, alleging as follows. (ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiff Amir Shaheed-Edwards, known professionally as "Bravo," is a musical artist and
songwriter. (FAC ¶ 8.) While doing business as "M.I.A. Branding Bravo," Bravo wrote and
recorded "All My Life." (FAC ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs filed for copyright registration of "All My Life" on
January 10, 2013, and are currently awaiting issuance of the registration. (FAC ¶ 15.) Defendant
is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of music licensing, recording, publishing, and
marketing, with its principal place of business in New York. (FAC ¶ 10.)
On May 31, 2015, Plaintiffs released the recording of "All My Life" on a public digital streaming
platform called SoundCloud. (FAC ¶ 16.) Two months later on July 31, 2015, a song named
"Drag Me Down," performed by the band "One Direction," was released on Spotify. (FAC ¶¶ 2,16.)
"Drag Me Down" used "the same sequence of words and lyrics that Bravo used in 'All my Life'" as
well as its "chorus, concept, and cadence." (FAC ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs became aware on or around
Page 1 of

4

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

CASE NO.:

CV 17-06579 SJO (SS)

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

DATE: December 14, 2017

November 2016 that Defendant "created and publicized" and "reproduced, distributed, or publicly
performed" the song "Drag Me Down" without obtaining authorization from Plaintiffs for the use
of significant portions of Plaintiffs musical composition and thus infringed Plaintiff's copyright.
(FAC ¶¶ 2, 17.)
On November 20, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, claiming that: (1) Plaintiffs
may not all proceed pro se; (2) the FAC contains no direct evidence of copying; (3) the FAC
contains no plausible allegations of access; and (4) the FAC fails to allege substantial similarity.
(See generally Mot., ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs did not oppose the Motion, but filed the Relief Motion
requesting an injunction against Defendant December 8, 2017. (See generally Relief Mot., ECF
No. 18.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for copyright infringement for the reasons
stated below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion and denies as moot Plaintiffs' Relief Motion.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiffs' Pro Se Status

As an initial matter, it is unclear from both the FAC and supporting documents which people or
entities are bringing the claims. Three Plaintiffs are listed on the FAC: (1) Amir Shaheed-Edwards
(professionally known as "Bravo"); (2) Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo; and (3)
Mr. Edwards. (See FAC 1.) It appears from the language in the FAC that Amir Shaheed-Edwards
and Mr. Edwards are the same person, also known as "Bravo." (See FAC ¶ 9 ["Mr. Edwards a/k/a
Bravo is a copyright owner and claimant in and to the musical composition 'All My Life'"].) While
Bravo's Partnership is not identified as a party to the action within the FAC itself, Plaintiffs allege
that Bravo recorded "All My Life" while doing business as "M.I.A. Branding Bravo." (FAC ¶ 16.)
A pro se plaintiff, however, may not represent any entity other than himself. See L.R. 83-2.10.
A business or corporate entity must be represented by an attorney permitted to practice before
the Court. L.R. 83-2.10.1. As only one plaintiff may be admitted pro se, and Amir ShaheedEdwards appears to be the sole legitimate plaintiff, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Bravo's
Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo and Mr. Edwards as parties to the action.
B.

Plaintiffs' Copyright Claims

Under Rule 12(b)(6), an action may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a
cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a motion to dismiss, the court
must accept as true all "well-pleaded factual allegations," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009), and construe these well-pleaded factual allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL GEN

:
Page 2 of

4

Initials of Preparer

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

CASE NO.:

CV 17-06579 SJO (SS)

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

DATE: December 14, 2017

"The court need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject
to judicial notice or by exhibit. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are
merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead
Sciences Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (requiring "more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do"). "In sum, for a complaint
to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory 'factual content', and reasonable inferences
from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v.
U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
To prevail on a claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiffs must demonstrate "(1) ownership of a
valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." L.A. Printex
Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 2012), as amended on denial of reh'g
and reh'g en banc (June 13, 2012). "Because direct evidence of copying is not available in most
cases, a plaintiff can establish copying by showing (1) that the defendant had access to the
plaintiff's work and (2) that the two works are substantially similar." Id. (citing Smith v. Jackson,
84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir.1996)).
1.

Access to Plaintiff's Work

When, as here, no direct evidence of copying is provided, "a plaintiff may establish copying by
showing that the infringer had access to the work and that the two works are substantially similar."
Shaw v. Lindeim, 919 F. 2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 2009). Access may be proven by evidence either
of a particular chain of events establishing the defendant's access to plaintiff's work or widespread
dissemination of plaintiff's work. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 482 (9th Cir.
2000). “To prove access, a plaintiff must show a reasonable possibility, not merely a bare
possibility, that an alleged infringer had the chance to view the protected work.” Art Attacks Ink,
LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2009). Typically, circumstantial evidence
that meets this standard comes in two forms: (1) evidence of a chain of events linking the plaintiff's
work with defendants' access to that work, and (2) evidence that a plaintiff's work has been widely
disseminated. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant "accessed Bravo's composition 'All My Life' through Sound
Cloud[,]" a digital streaming platform "which can be viewed by the general public at
https://soundcloud.com/you/tracks." (FAC ¶¶ 16, 20.) Plaintiffs do not provide any factual
allegations that would demonstrate a chain of events leading to Defendant's access of the work,
nor do Plaintiffs provide any information regarding the musical composition's dissemination or
listenership. Plaintiffs have thus failed to plausibly allege that Defendant had access to Plaintiffs'
work and cannot sustain a claim for copyright infringement.
\\\

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL GEN

:
Page 3 of

4

Initials of Preparer

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

CASE NO.:

CV 17-06579 SJO (SS)
2.

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

DATE: December 14, 2017

Substantial Similarity

In addition to access, Plaintiffs must also show that "the works at issue are substantially similar
in their protected elements." Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002).
Substantial similarity is determined first by applying the "extrinsic test," an "objective comparison
of specific expressive elements [that] focuses on the articulable similarities between the two
works." L.A. Printex Indus., Inc., 676 F.3d at 848. Second, the "intrinsic test" analyzes whether
a reasonable person would determine the works are substantially similar due to the strong
extrinsic similarities. Id. "Only the extrinsic test is assessed prior to a jury trial (i.e., in a motion
to dismiss or on summary judgment) because the intrinsic test, which examines an ordinary
person's subjective impressions of the similarities between two works, is exclusively the province
of the jury." Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1133 n. 8 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal
quotations omitted); see also Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th
Cir. 1994). Under the extrinsic test, the Court "must take care to inquire only whether the
protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar." Cavalier, 297 F.3d at 822. For
example, ideas, scènes à faire (standard features), and unoriginal components aren't protectable.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1443-45 (9th Cir.1994).
Plaintiffs allege that "Drag Me Down" used "the same sequence of words and lyrics that Bravo
used in 'All my Life'" as well as its "chorus, concept, and cadence." (FAC ¶ 18.) Specifically,
"Drag Me Down" used the lyrics "all my life" and "cadence." (FAC ¶ 18.) These two short lyrics
alone, however, are insufficient to allege substantial similarity as they are unprotectable
commonly used phrases. See Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Ordinary
phrases are not entitled to copyright protection."). Further, Plaintiffs' allegations that the chorus,
concept, and cadence of the two songs are similar are merely conclusory and cannot be sustained
without more specificity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for copyright
infringement based on substantial similarity between the two works.
III.

RULING

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Syco Entertainment, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs Amir Shaheed-Edwards, Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding
Bravo, and Mr. Edwards' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief is
DENIED as moot. Further, Plaintiff Bravo's Partnership d/b/a M.I.A. Branding Bravo and
Plaintiff Mr. Edwards are hereby DISMISSED as parties to the action. Plaintiff Amir ShaheedEdwards may file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL GEN

:
Page 4 of

4

Initials of Preparer