Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 87

OPPOSITION to Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue The Hearing Date on Defendants' Rule 12 Motions from January 24, 2011 to January 31, 2011 IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE WITH HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 82 filed by Plaintiff Bryan Pringle. (Holley, Colin)

1 Dean A. Dickie (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
2 Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
3 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
225 West Washington Street, Suite 2600
4 Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: 312.460.4288
6 Ira Gould (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
7 Ryan L. Greely (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
8 GOULD LAW GROUP
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2750
9 Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: 312.726.1328
11 George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433)
[e-mail]
12 Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999)
[e-mail]
13 HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
14 Corona del Mar, California 92625
Telephone: [phone]
15 Facsimile: 949.718.4580
16 Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRYAN PRINGLE
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SOUTHERN DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY
)
FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and
)
JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and
collectively as the music group The Black )
)
Eyed Peas, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

21 BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,

Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST(RZx)

22

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS

23
24
25
26
27
28

4821-6620-6216 - v. 1

1

Defendants seek to move the hearing on their Motions to Dismiss/Strike/More

2 Definite Statement from January 24, 2011 to January 31, 2011, so that they can be
3 heard on the same day as Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff’s
4 counsel opposes Defendants’ request because it would confuse the issues, overwhelm
5 the Court, and potentially prejudice Plaintiff, and because Defendants have not
6 established good cause for consolidating the motions.
BACKGROUND

7
8

On January 24, 2011, the Court will hear argument on the following motions:

9

1.

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike
First Amended Complaint, Motion for More Definite Statement
filed by Defendants Cherry River Music Co., EMI April Music
Inc., Stacy Ferguson (collectively as the music group the Black
Eyed Peas), Jaime Gomez (collectively as the music group the
Black Eyed Peas), Headphone Junkie Publishing LLC, Jeepney
Music Inc., William Adams, Jr. (individually), Allan Pineda
(collectively as the music group the Black Eyed Peas), Tab
Magnetic Publishing, Will.I.Am Music LLC, and

2.

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Shapiro Bernstein and Co.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Each of the remaining Defendants have moved to join the two motions. Both

18 motions have been fully briefed by the parties. Each of these motions involves
19 substantial legal issues which will require adequate time for both parties to properly
20 address at the hearing. There are many different defendants and numerous law firms
21 involved in the case and who will desire an opportunity to speak at the hearing.
22

In addition to Defendants’ motions, plaintiff Bryan Pringle (“Pringle”) filed a

23 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and that motion is set for hearing on January 31,
24 2011. This is also an important motion raising substantive legal issues and
25 evidentiary matters. Defendants responded to the motion on January 10, 2011.
26 Pringle’s reply will be filed on January 18, 2011 (as January 17, 2011 is a Court
27 holiday).
28
1
4821-6620-6216 - v. 1

1
2

ARGUMENT
Defendants cite convenience to the Court, without explanation, as one reason

3 supporting consolidation of the two hearings. Given the number of issues involved
4 in the three motions (none of which are overlapping between Pringle’s Motion for
5 Preliminary Injunction and Defendants’ motions), however, consolidating all
6 motions to one date, and effectively bunching them together, would create more
7 work for the Court and its staff1 as well as create the risk of confusion between the
8 relevant issues on the same day that could potentially prejudice the Plaintiff. First,
9 bunching up the hearings on the same day would no doubt impose serious time
10 constraints on the respective Motions, thus prohibiting Plaintiff (and Defendants for
11 that matter) from being able to properly address all the issues before the Court.
12 Second, in the event that the Court rules on Defendants’ motions in a way that
13 substantively or procedurally affects Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
14 Plaintiff may have no time to determine just how the hearing might be affected, and
15 in the end there would be a risk that the hearing might not be finished on the
16 scheduled date.
17

Likewise, Defendants did not submit any Declaration stating that it would be a

18 hardship for them to appear at both hearings, nor did they make the claim in their
19 Motion. Instead, they simply argued it would be more efficient to appear once. In
20 support of this argument, Defendants cite to it being in Pringle’s convenience as
21 well. It is efficient in a limited way, but inefficient on the broader scale. Pringle’s
22
23
1
This argument was pointed out to Mr. Pink, counsel for Defendants, on January 6,
24 2010 (“Given the number of motions “on calendar” and the substantive issues
involved, Pringle’s counsel does not agree that consolidating the hearings in each
25 matter is practical. Indeed, we believe that consolidating the hearings would
overwhelm the respective courts and their staff and prolong the hearings.”), a
26 communication Defendants did not attach to their ex parte application. See January
6, 2011 email from George Hampton to Jonathon Pink, a true and correct copy of
27 which is attached to this Response as Exhibit 1.

28
2
4821-6620-6216 - v. 1

1 counsel have already indicated their willingness to travel to California for both
2 hearings and do not find it to be inconvenient.
3

Further, the reasons cited by Defendants are among the primary reasons why

4 local counsel is used—so that inconvenient travel schedules cannot be used as a
5 reason to disrupt litigation schedules.
6
7

CONCLUSION
For each of the reasons identified in this Memorandum, Plaintiff Bryan Pringle

8 requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Consolidate
9 Hearings.
10
11 Dated: January 11, 2011
12
13

Dean A. Dickie (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE,
P.L.C.
Ira Gould (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Ryan L. Greely (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
GOULD LAW GROUP

14
15

George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433)
Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999)
HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP

16
17

By: /s/ Ira Gould
Ira Gould

18
19

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRYAN PRINGLE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
4821-6620-6216 - v. 1

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000004

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000005

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF Users:

Mariangela Seale
6 Karen R. Thorland
7 Barry I. Slotnick
Ira P. Gould
8
Tal Efriam Dickstein
9 Linda M. Burrow
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],
Ryan Christopher Williams [e-mail]
Kara E. F. Cenar
[e-mail]
Ryan L. Greely
[e-mail]
Robert C. Levels
[e-mail]
Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer [e-mail]
Rachel Aleeza Rappaport [e-mail]
Jonathan S. Pink
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail]
Dean A. Dickie
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Heather L. Pearson
[e-mail]

19
20
21
22
23

I am unaware of any attorneys of record in this action who are not registered
for the CM/ECF system or who did not consent to electronic service.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

24 Dated: January 11, 2011

/s/Colin C. Holley

25

George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433)
Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999)
HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 949.718.4580

26
27
28