Mediostream Inc. v. Priddis Music Inc. et al

Filing 17

Attachment 1
Joint MOTION to Continue September 27, 2007, Case Management Conference filed by Chappell & Co. Inc., Cotillion Music Inc., Dayspring Music LLC, Rightsong Music Inc., Unichappell Music Inc., Walden Music Inc., Warner/Tamerlane Publishing Corp., WB Music Corp., Word Music LLC, Wordspring Music LLC, Warner/Chappell Music Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Joint Stipulation re: continuance of case management conference# 2 Proposed Order Re: Continuance of Case Management Conference)(Mayer, Marc) (Filed on 9/12/2007)

Download PDF
Mediostream Inc. v. Priddis Music Inc. et al Doc. 17 Att. 1 Case 3:07-cv-02127-PJH Document 17-2 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1531712.1 MARC E. MAYER (SBN 190969), mem@msk.com MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064-1683 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 Attorneys for Defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. Word Music, LLC, Dayspring Music, LLC, Wordspring Music, LLC, Unichappell Music, Inc., Chappell & Co., Inc., Cotillion Music, Inc., Rightsong Music, Inc., Walden Music, Inc., Warner/Tamerlane Publishing Corp., and WB Music Corp. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEDIOSTREAM, INC., Plaint iff, v. PRIDDIS MUSIC, INC. AND WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et. al. Defendants. CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTING A FOUR-WEEK CONTINUANCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Plaint iff Mediostream, Inc. ("Mediostream") and Defendants Priddis Music, Inc. ("Priddis"), Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Word Music, LLC, Dayspring Music, LLC, Wordspring Music, LLC, Unichappell Music, Inc., Chappell & Co., Inc., Cotillion Music, Inc., Rightsong Music, Inc., Walden Music, Inc., Warner/Tamerlane Publishing Corp., and WB Music Corp. (the defendants other than Priddis collectively are referred to hereafter as the "Warner Defendants") through their respective counsel, hereby jo int ly submit this Stipulation and Proposed Order seeking to continue the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for September 27, 2007 unt il October 25, 2007 (exactly four weeks). This Stipulation is made and entered into by the parties based on the following facts: 28 29 CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:07-cv-02127-PJH Document 17-2 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1531712.1 1. On April 17, 2007, Mediostream filed its complaint seeking declaratory relief (against Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Priddis) and indemnity (against Priddis) in the aboveent it led action. Mediostream sought declaratory relief concerning allegations made by the Warner Defendants that Mediostream had infringed their rights in certain musical compositions as used in Mediostream's karaoke sound recordings. Mediostream sought indemnificat ion from Priddis in connection with the Warner Defendants' infringement claims. 2. On May 8, 2007, ten (10) affiliates/subsidiaries of Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (the "Nashville Plaintiffs"), but not Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. itself, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Mediostream, Priddis, Prosound Karaoke, Ltd., Richard L. Priddis, DJ Miller Music Distributors, Inc. and Dale S. Miller, individually, for copyright infringement, styled as Word Music, LLC et al. v. Priddis Music et al., Case No. 3:07-0502 (M.D. Tenn.) (the "Tennessee Action"). In the Tennessee Action, the Nashville Plaintiffs allege that the defendants therein, via the defendants' karaoke sound recordings, infringed the Nashville Plaintiffs' rights in certain musical compositions. 3. On May 14, 2007, Mediostream filed its First Amended Complaint, naming the Nashville Plaintiffs as additional defendants herein. 4. On June 1, 2007, Priddis filed a motion to dismiss the Tennessee Action for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. On July 2, 2007, the Nashville Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Tennessee Action. On July 27, 2007, Mediostream joined Priddis' motion to dismiss the Tennessee Action. Both motions the motion to dismiss/transfer and the motion for a preliminary injunction are pending before the Middle District of Tennessee. 5. On July 16, 2007, Mediostream, Priddis, and the Warner Defendants (the "parties") 28 29 filed a joint stipulat ion requesting that the Court continue the case management conference in this 2 CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case 3:07-cv-02127-PJH Document 17-2 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1531712.1 action (originally scheduled for July 26, 2007) on the basis that the parties were attempting to resolve, informally, the issue of where this action was to proceed (i.e., in this Court or in the Middle District of Tennessee). The Warner Defendants also noted that if the matter could not be resolved informally, they intended to file a motion to dismiss the action. On July 23, 2007, the Court granted the parties' request and continued the case management conference to September 27, 2007. 6. The parties were unable to resolve the venue issue by the end of July 2007. Accordingly, on August 3, 2007, the Warner Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action, or, alternatively, to transfer or stay the action, in light of the parallel Tennessee Action. The Warner Defendants' motion to dismiss initially was noticed for September 19, 2007 (over one week prior to the case management conference). However, at the Court's request, the motion was re-noticed for September 26, 2007 just one day prior to the rescheduled case management conference. 7. Because the Warner Defendants' motion to dismiss is not scheduled to be heard until September 26, the parties will not have a ruling on that motion prior to the time they will be required to conduct an early meeting of counsel, prepare a case management statement, and prepare for the case management conference. 8. In addition to the foregoing, the parties have agreed to mediate this dispute. A mediation is being scheduled for mid-October 2007. 9. In light of the Warner Defendants' pending motion to dismiss and the parties' pending mediation and with the express reservation that the entry into this Stipulation shall not prejudice any part y's rights or be raised as a defense to Defendants' objections to the jurisdiction/venue of this Court, including in any ensuing motion to dismiss/transfer/stay these proceedings the parties believe that at this time it is premature to attend a case management conference, prepare a case management statement, or exchange initial disclosures in this action. 3 CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 28 29 Case 3:07-cv-02127-PJH Document 17-2 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1531712.1 Most notably, a ruling on the Warner Defendants' motion to dismiss this action, a ruling on Mediostream's and Priddis' motion to dismiss the Tennessee Act ion, and/or the outcome of the parties' mediation would fundamentally impact the case management conference. (Indeed, in the event that the Warner Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, the parties decide to litigate the claims in Tennessee, or the parties settle the case, then the case management conference may not be necessary at all.) The parties believe that the requested four-week extensio n of the case management conference is necessary to resolve the uncertainty concerning the venue issue, as well as to determine whether this action will proceed at all, including whether it will be dismissed or settled. The parties believe that the case management conference will be far more productive if held after these issues are resolved. 10. This is the parties' second request for a continuance of the case management conference (or for any deadlines) in this case. The parties believe that such a continuance would not impact the overall schedule for this case. No trial date has yet been set for this case. 11. The parties collectively have agreed that they are available for a case management conference on October 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. Accordingly, the parties jo int ly and respectfully request that the case management conference be re-set for that date. DATED: September 12, 2007 MARC E. MAYER MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP By: /s/ Marc E. Mayer____________ Marc E. Mayer Attorneys for the Warner Defendants 28 29 4 CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case 3:07-cv-02127-PJH Document 17-2 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1531712.1 DATED: September 12, 2007 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID ATTORNEY AT LAW By: /s/ Frear Stephen Schmid___________ Frear Stephen Schmid Attorneys for Plaintiff Mediostream, Inc. DATED: September 12, 2007 DANIEL R. RICHARDSON LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL RICHARDSON By: /s/ Daniel R. Richardson__________ Daniel R. Richardson Attorneys for Defendant Priddis Music, Inc. 28 29 5 CASE NO. C 07 2127 PJH JOINT STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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?