WB Music Corp. et al v. FutureToday, Inc. et al

Filing 43

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR QUASH PROCESS AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 24 .the Court DENIES defendants motion to dismiss the Complaint or quash process, and DENIES defendants motion for a more definite statement. (lc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-01238-CAS(FFMx)
Date  August 27, 2018
WB MUSIC CORP., WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.,
W.B.M. MUSIC CORP., AND UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., v.
FUTURETODAY, INC.

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: 

N/A 

Tape No. 

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 

Not Present

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder 

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR
QUASH PROCESS AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
(Dkt. 24, filed June 16, 2018)

I.

INTRODUCTION

On February 14, 2018, plaintiffs WB Music Corp., Warner-Tamerlane Publishing
Corp., W.B.M. Music Corp., and Unichappell Music Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs.”) filed
the Complaint against defendant Future Today, Inc. (“Future Today”). Dkt. 1. The
Complaint alleges that Future Today, headquartered in California, infringes on plaintiffs’
copyrights by disseminating plaintiffs’ copyrighted material through television services,
websites, mobile applications, and other outlets. Compl. ¶¶ 2–3, 12. Plaintiffs assert a
single claim for copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§
106, 501. Compl. ¶ 26.
On June 16, 2018, Future Today filed the instant motion for a more definite
statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), as well as to dismiss the
Complaint or quash process under Rule 12(b)(4). Dkt. 24. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition on July 30, 2018. Dkt. 32. On August 6, 2018, Future Today filed its reply
and a Request for Judicial Notice1. Dkts. 34, 35. A hearing on the motion was held on
August 20, 2018. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds
and concludes as follows.

1

Given the Court’s disposition of the motion below, the Request for Judicial Notice is
DENIED as moot.

CV-2417 (12/4)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-01238-CAS(FFMx)
Date  August 27, 2018
WB MUSIC CORP., WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.,
W.B.M. MUSIC CORP., AND UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., v.
FUTURETODAY, INC.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Improper Process
Rule 12(b)(4) was designed to “challenge irregularities in the contents of the
summons.” Chilicky v. Schweiker, 796 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 1986), reversed on
other grounds by 487 U.S. 412 (1988). The sufficiency of process is governed by Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires, among other things, that a
summons “name the court and the parties” and “be directed to the defendant.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (B). “Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so
long as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint.” United Food & Commercial
Workers Int'l Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984). If a Rule
12(b)(4) motion is granted, the district court has the discretion to choose between
dismissal or quashing service of process. See Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank, 538 F.2d
1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976). Even if the summons fails to name all defendants or
specifies the incorrect time for filing an answer, it is defendant’s burden to show
prejudice that would justify dismissal. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union,
736 F.2d at 1382.
B. More Definite Statement
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), “[a] party may move for a more
definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(e) “must point out the defects complained of
and the details desired.” Id. Generally, “[m]otions for a more definite statement are
viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc.,
189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). For example, “[s]uch a motion is likely to be
denied where the substance of the claim has been alleged, even though some of the
details are omitted.” True v. American Honda Moro Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1175,
1180 (C.D. Cal.2007). By contrast, “a Rule 12(e) motion is more likely to be granted
where the complaint is so general that ambiguity arises in determining the nature of the
claim or the parties against whom it is being made.” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874
F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994).

CV-2417 (12/4)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-01238-CAS(FFMx)
Date  August 27, 2018
WB MUSIC CORP., WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.,
W.B.M. MUSIC CORP., AND UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., v.
FUTURETODAY, INC.

III.

ANALYSIS

A. Improper Process
Defendant’s argument regarding improper process is that the caption of the
Complaint and summons identify defendant as “FutureToday, Inc.” instead of its proper
name of “Future Today, Inc.” Defendant argues that this misnomer means that the
process was insufficient, and as a result the Complaint must be dismissed and the service
quashed, or, in the alternative, service should be quashed and plaintiffs ordered to file and
serve an amended summons and complaint.2 Mot. at 4. The Court disagrees.
The Ninth Circuit has rejected the idea that omitting “Inc.” from a defendant’s
name would invalidate service of process. Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n. of Am.,
300 F.3d 1129, 1132 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, an omitted space in defendant’s
name does not invalidate process in this case. Defendant clearly received sufficient
notice of the Complaint, and there is no dispute that this defendant is in fact the proper
party to the case. Defendant has even received six extensions of time to file a response.
No legitimate purpose would be served by quashing service and requiring plaintiffs to
reserve an amended summons and complaint. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the
Complaint and/or quash process under Rule 12(b)(4) is DENIED.
B. More Definite Statement
Defendant asks the Court to order plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement
because plaintiffs’ “puzzle pleading” does not: (1) clearly delineate plaintiffs’ actual
ownership interests, (2) identify specific webpages in a way which would allow

2

At the hearing the counsel for defendant brought Borzeka v. Heckler to the Court’s
attention. 739 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1984). In Borzeka the Ninth Circuit laid out a four part
test to determine when the failure to personally serve the United States under then-Rule
4(d)(4) did not require dismissal of the complaint. Id. at 447. Borzeka does not help
defendant because a failure to personally serve is enforced through 12(b)(5), and
dismissals under Rule 12(b)(4) are instead governed by United Food & Commercial
Workers Int'l Union’s requirement that the defendant show prejudice. 736 F.2d. 1382.
Borzeka also does not address defendant’s preferred remedy in this case of quashing the
summons and ordering the plaintiff to file and service an amended complaint.

CV-2417 (12/4)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-01238-CAS(FFMx)
Date  August 27, 2018
WB MUSIC CORP., WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.,
W.B.M. MUSIC CORP., AND UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., v.
FUTURETODAY, INC.

defendant to stop the alleged infringement, or (3) identify how defendant’s alleged
infringement was “willful.” Mot. at 6–14. The Court will address each item in turn.
Defendant’s first two grounds for its request for a more definite statement are
based in potential affirmative defenses. Defendant asks the Court to require plaintiffs to
delineate their actual ownership interests because if plaintiffs are only co-owners of some
of the copyrighted works at issue then it is possible that defendant received a valid
license from another co-owner. Reply at 6–7. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he
existence of a license creates an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.
Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th
Cir. 2000). Defendant’s second ground for asking for a more definite statement is that
plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint “strongly suggest” that defendant may be eligible
for a safe harbor provision in 17 U.S.C. § 512, and the Complaint does not allege facts
that would negate the safe harbor provisions as provided in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). Mot. at
12. The Ninth Circuit has also held that the safe harbor provisions found at 17 U.S.C. §
512 are affirmative defenses that must be established by their proponent. Columbia
Pictures Indus. v. Gary Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013).
A motion for a more definite statement is improper when the “defects complained
of and the details desired” relate solely to affirmative defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Such a request is only proper when the complaint “is so vague or ambiguous that the
party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Id. However, a complaint’s failure to
allege facts solely related to affirmative defenses is not a defect in the complaint because
affirmative defenses must be pleaded in the answer, not the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(c)(1); Davis v. Indiana State Police, 541 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Complaints
need not anticipate, and attempt to plead around, potential affirmative defenses.”).
Plaintiffs therefore cannot be ordered to provide a more definite statement for facts they
were never obligated to allege in the first place.
Defendant’s third ground for its request for a more definite statement concerns
plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant’s infringement was “willful and deliberate” and
“continues today.” Mot. at 8–11 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5). Defendant spends much of its
briefing on this issue arguing that those paragraphs are false or misleading, but by doing
so defendant has shown it does understand the allegations made in those paragraphs and

CV-2417 (12/4)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:18-cv-01238-CAS(FFMx)
Date  August 27, 2018
WB MUSIC CORP., WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.,
W.B.M. MUSIC CORP., AND UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., v.
FUTURETODAY, INC.

is capable of preparing a response. Having independently reviewed the cited paragraphs,
the Court finds that they are more than adequately detailed for the purposes of Rule 12(e).
For the foregoing reasons defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is
DENIED.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to
dismiss the Complaint or quash process, and DENIES defendant’s motion for a more
definite statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer 

CV-2417 (12/4)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                        CMJ 

00 

Page 5 of 5