Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 93

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint MOTION to Strike First Amended Complaint MOTION for More Definite Statement 52 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

LLP

HAMPTONHOLLEY

2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, California 92625

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

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, MOTION TO
STRIKE AND MOTION FOR
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

23
24
25
26
27
28

4813-4012-9032 - v. 1

DATE: January 24, 2011
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
CTRM: 10A

1

Plaintiff Bryan Pringle hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal

2 Rules of Evidence, that the Court take judicial notice of the following fact, which is
3 not subject to reasonable dispute:
4

On January 18, 2011, in the action captioned Ebony Latrice Batts, et al. v.

5 William Adams, Jr., et al., Case No. CV10-8123-JFW(RZx) in the U.S. District
6 Court for the Central District of California, the Court filed the ORDER DENYING
7 MOTION OF DEFENDANTS STACY FERGUSON P/K/A FERGIE,
8 HEADPHONE JUNKIE PUBLISHING, LLC AND EMI APRIL MUSIC
9 PUBLISHING, INC. FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO STRIKE
10 ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT and ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS

LLP

HAMPTONHOLLEY

2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, California 92625

11 WILLIAM ADAMS, ALLAN PINEDA, AND JAIME GOMEZ, ALL
12 INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS THE MUSIC GROUP THE BLACK
13 EYED PEAS; JAIME MUNSON A/K/A POET NAME LIFE; WILL.I.AM MUSIC,
14 LLC; TAB MAGNETIC PUBLISHING; CHERRY RIVER MUSIC CO.; AND
15 JEEPNEY MUSIC, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’
16 COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS, a copy of
17 which is attached to this Request as Exhibit “A.”
18

It is appropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of the fact listed above

19 pursuant to Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence because the fact is
20 capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
21 cannot be reasonably questioned.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
4813-4012-9032 - v. 1

1

The filing listed above can be determined by reference to the records of the

2 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
3
4 Dated: January 20, 2011
5
6

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

7
8

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

9
10

By: /s/ Dean A. Dickie
Dean A. Dickie

LLP

HAMPTONHOLLEY

2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, California 92625

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRYAN PRINGLE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
4813-4012-9032 - v. 1

Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 72

Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:490

PRIORITY SEND

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

CV 10-8123-JFW (RZx)

Title:

Ebony Latrice Batts, et al. -v- William Adams, Jr., et al.

Date: January 18, 2011

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
S. Eagle
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER DENYING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS STACY
FERGUSON P/K/A FERGIE, HEADPHONE JUNKIE
PUBLISHING, LLC AND EMI APRIL MUSIC
PUBLISHING, INC. FOR A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT AND TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS IN
COMPLAINT [filed 12/13/10; Docket Nos. 42 and 43];
and
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS WILLIAM ADAMS,
ALLAN PINEDA, AND JAIME GOMEZ, ALL
INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS THE MUSIC
GROUP THE BLACK EYED PEAS; JAIME MUNSON
A/K/A POET NAME LIFE; WILL.I.AM MUSIC, LLC; TAB
MAGNETIC PUBLISHING; CHERRY RIVER MUSIC
CO.; AND JEEPNEY MUSIC, INC.’S MOTION TO
STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS [filed
12/13/10; Docket No. 44]

On December 13, 2010, Defendants Stacy Ferguson p/k/a Fergie, Headphone Junkie
Publishing, LLC and EMI April Music Publishing, Inc. (collectively, the “Ferguson Defendants”) filed
a Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Allegations in Complaint [Docket Nos. 42 and
43]. On December 13, 2010, Defendants William Adams, Allan Pineda, and Jaime Gomez, all
individually and collectively as the music group The Black Eyed Peas; Jaime Munson a/k/a Poet
Name Life; will.i.am music, llc; Tab Magnetic Publishing; Cherry River Music Co.; and Jeepney
Music, Inc. (collectively, the “Adams Defendants”) filed a Notice of Joinder of the Ferguson
Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Allegations in Complaint [Docket
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000003

Page 1 of 5

Initials of Deputy Clerk se

Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 72

Filed 01/18/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:491

No. 45]. On January 3, 2011, Plaintiffs Ebony Latrice Batts a/k/a Phoenix Phenom and Manfred
Mohr (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Opposition [Docket No. 51]. On January 10, 2011, the
Ferguson Defendants filed a Reply [Docket No. 52].
On December 13, 2010, the Adams Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’
Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44]. On December 13, 2010,
Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc. and Interscope Records (collectively, “UMG Defendants”) filed a
Joinder in Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Adams Defendants [Docket No. 47]. On January 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition [Docket No. 50]. On January 10, 2011, the Adams Defendants filed a Reply [Docket
No. 55]. On January 10, 2011, the UMG Defendants filed a Notice of Joinder in the Adams
Defendants’ Reply [Docket No. 56].
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court
finds that these matters are appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing
calendared for January 24, 2011 is hereby vacated and these matters taken off calendar. After
considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers and the arguments therein, the Court rules as
follows:
I.

Factual and Procedural History

On October 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Ferguson Defendants and the
Adams Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging a single claim for relief for copyright
infringement. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ song, “Boom Boom Pow”
infringes Plaintiffs’ copyright in the song “Boom Dynamite.”
In response, the Ferguson Defendants filed a Motion for a More Definitive Statement and to
Strike Allegations in Complaint, in which they seek, pursuant to Rule 12(e) and (f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) an order for a more definite statement; and (2) an order striking
several impertinent and immaterial allegations that appear in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
The Adams Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss, in which they seek: (1) an order striking certain allegations in the
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) because these allegations are redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
and/or scandalous; or, in the alternative (2) an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to comply
with Rule 8(a)(2).
II.

Discussion
A.

The Ferguson Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike
Allegations in Complaint
1.

The Ferguson Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Allegations in
Complaint Should be Denied.

In their Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Allegations in Complaint, the
Ferguson Defendants seek, in part, on order striking certain allegations in the Complaint, pursuant
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000004

Page 2 of 5

Initials of Deputy Clerk se

Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 72

Filed 01/18/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:492

to Rule 12(f), because these allegations are immaterial and/or impertinent. Rule 12(f) provides
that “on motion made by a party [ ] before responding to the pleading,” the Court “may strike from
a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “‘Immaterial’ matter is that which has no essential or important
relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded . . . ‘Impertinent’ matter consists
of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc.
v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 1382, pp. 706-07, 711 (1990)), rev'd. on other grounds
by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “‘Redundant’ allegations are those that are
needlessly repetitive or wholly foreign to the issues involved in the action.” California Dept. of
Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
“Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of
pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Id.; see also
Clement v. American Greetings Corp., 636 F. Supp. 1326, 1332 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (Motions to strike
are “generally viewed with disfavor and not frequently granted.”). “Given their disfavored status,
courts often require ‘a showing of prejudice by the moving party’ before granting the requested
relief.” Id. (quoting Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Sands, 902 F. Supp. 1149, 1166 (C.D. Cal.
1995)). “In exercising its discretion, the court views the pleadings in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and resolves any doubt as to the relevance of the challenged allegations or
sufficiency of a defense in defendant's favor. This is particularly true if the moving party can
demonstrate no resulting prejudice.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
In this case, the Court concludes that, given Plaintiffs’ “compliance with at least the
minimum standard of the Federal Rules, the disfavor with which motions to strike are viewed, and
the fact that the court may strike matter prejudicial to defendants from the pleadings at any time
upon its own initiative,” and the lack of prejudice demonstrated by the Ferguson Defendants, the
Ferguson Defendants’ motion to strike is denied. Clement v. American Greetings Corp., 636
F.Supp. at 1334.
2.

The Ferguson Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement Should
be Denied.

In their Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Allegations in Complaint, the
Ferguson Defendants seek, pursuant to Rule 12(e), an order requiring Plaintiffs to specify which
Defendants are involved in certain allegations in the Complaint. Under Rule 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. The motion
must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of
and the details desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only where the
complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being
asserted.” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994). “Motions
for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted because of the
minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules.” Id.; see also Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.
Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“[A] motion for a more definite statement must be considered
in light of the liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).”).
Pursuant to Rule 8(a), claimants are only required to set forth “a short and plain statement
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000005

Page 3 of 5

Initials of Deputy Clerk se

Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 72

Filed 01/18/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:493

of the claim showing that [they are] entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Parties are expected to
use discovery, not the pleadings, to learn the specifics of the claims being asserted.” Sagan, 874
F. Supp. at 1077. “In particular, where the information sought by the moving party is available
and/or properly sought through discovery [a motion for a more definite statement] should be
denied.” Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981).
In this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that
the Ferguson Defendants cannot reasonably prepare an answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, the
Ferguson Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is denied.
B.

The Adams Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in
the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss
1.

The Adams Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Allegations in the
Complaint Should be Denied.

In their Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to
Dismiss, the Adams Defendants seek, in part, an order striking certain allegations in the Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(f) because these allegations are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and/or
scandalous. As stated above with respect to the Ferguson Defendants’ motion, the Court
concludes that, given Plaintiffs’ “compliance with at least the minimum standard of the Federal
Rules, the disfavor with which motions to strike are viewed, and the fact that the court may strike
matter prejudicial to defendants from the pleadings at any time upon its own initiative,” and the lack
of prejudice demonstrated by the Adams Defendants, the Adams Defendants’ motion to strike is
denied. Clement v. American Greetings Corp., 636 F.Supp. at 1334.
2.

The Adams Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with
Rule 8(a)(2) Should be Denied.

In their Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to
Dismiss, the Adams Defendants seek, in the alternative, an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint
for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because Plaintiffs’ Complaint is verbose, redundant, and
speculative. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431
(9th Cir. 1969), the Ninth Circuit discussed a court’s ability to dismiss a complaint for failure to
comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit stated, in part:
The failure of a complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is usually
dealt with by a motion made under Rule 12(b)(6), while the need for supplying a more
definite statement is ordinarily brought before the court by a motion invoking Rule
12(e). However, in an aggravated case a district court has discretion to dismiss an
action for failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2). See Corcoran v.
Yorty, 347 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1965); Agnew v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 870-871 (9th
Cir. 1964). But, as exemplified by Corcoran and Agnew, a dismissal for a violation
under Rule 8(a)(2), is usually confined to instances in which the complaint is so
“verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”
Corcoran, 347 F.2d at 223.
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000006

Page 4 of 5

Initials of Deputy Clerk se

Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 72

Filed 01/18/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:494

In this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not so “verbose, confused and
redundant that its true substance, if any is well disguised.” Given the Adams Defendants’
familiarity with the extensive history of this dispute including the prior lawsuit filed in the Northern
District of Illinois and the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction, any argument that the Adams
Defendants cannot reasonably prepare an answer to the Complaint borders on the frivolous.
Accordingly, the Adams Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) is
denied.
III.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Ferguson Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike
Allegations in Complaint is DENIED, and the Adams Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendants shall file an
answer to the Complaint by January 28, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 000007

Page 5 of 5

Initials of Deputy Clerk se

1
2
3
4
5
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 20, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, MOTION TO STRIKE AND
MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT using the CM/ECF system which
will send notification of such filing to the following registered CM/ECF Users:

Mariangela Seale
7 Karen R. Thorland
8 Barry I. Slotnick
Ira P. Gould
9
Tal Efriam Dickstein
10 Linda M. Burrow
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

[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]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.

1

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

2 America that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
3 Dated: January 20, 2011
4

/s/Colin C. Holley
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

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ND: 4833-3883-8536, v. 1