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)

Download PDF
1 Dean A. Dickie (appearing Pro Hac Vice) Dickie@MillerCanfield.com 2 Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer (appearing Pro Hac Vice) Koppenhoefer@MillerCanfield.com 3 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 225 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 4 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.460.4227 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) Gould@igouldlaw.com 7 Ryan L. Greely (appearing Pro Hac Vice) Rgreely@igouldlaw.com 8 GOULD LAW GROUP 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2750 9 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312.781.0680 10 Facsimile: 312.726.1328 11 George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433) ghampton@hamptonholley.com 12 Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999) cholley@hamptonholley.com 13 HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 14 Corona del Mar, California 92625 Telephone: 949.718.4550 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 merili.seale@bryancave.com vhenderson@loeb.com, kthorland@loeb.com bslotnick@loeb.com gould@igouldlaw.com tdickstein@loeb.com wilson@caldwell-leslie.com, burrow@caldwell-leslie.com, popescu@caldwell-leslie.com, Ryan Christopher Williams williamsr@millercanfield.com Kara E. F. Cenar kara.cenar@bryancave.com Ryan L. Greely rgreely@igouldlaw.com Robert C. Levels levels@millercanfield.com Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer koppenhoefer@millercanfield.com Rachel Aleeza Rappaport rrappaport@loeb.com Jonathan S. Pink jonathan.pink@bryancave.com, carlie.peisley@bryancave.com, elaine.hellwig@bryancave.com Dean A. Dickie dickie@millercanfield.com, frye@millercanfield.com, deuel@millercanfield.com, smithkaa@millercanfield.com, seaton@millercanfield.com, williamsr@millercanfield.com Heather L. Pearson pearson@caldwell-leslie.com 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: 949.718.4550 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?