Brave New Films 501 (C)(4) v. Weiner et al

Filing 49

Memorandum in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFF BRAVE NEW FILMS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL WEINER AKA MICHAEL SAVAGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS filed byBrave New Films 501 (C)(4). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL WEINER AKA MICHAEL SAVAGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS)(Pierce, Sheila) (Filed on 3/2/2009)

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 28

Anthony T. Falzone (SBN 190845) Julie A. Ahrens (SBN 230170) Christopher K. Ridder (SBN 218691) STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, California 94305-8610 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] William F. Abrams (SBN 88805) Sheila M. Pierce (SBN 232610) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.849.4800 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff BRAVE NEW FILMS 501(c)(4) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BRAVE NEW FILMS 501(C)(4), v. Plaintiff,

No. CV 08-04703 SI [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL WEINER AKA MICHAEL SAVAGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 3, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 10 Judge: Honorable Susan Illston

MICHAEL WEINER aka MICHAEL SAVAGE, and ORIGINAL TALK RADIO NETWORK, INC., Defendants.

Defendant Michael Weiner aka Michael Savage's Motion To Dismiss came on regularly for hearing on April 3, 2009 before the Honorable Susan Illston. All parties received notice and were represented by counsel. The Court, having considered all papers filed in connection with this Motion To Dismiss, and the arguments of counsel, and FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, hereby DENIES Defendant Michael Weiner aka Michael Savage's motion.
CV 08-04703 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

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 28

Defendant's Motion To Dismiss should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The Court hereby takes judicial notice of the items requested by Plaintiff

Brave New Films. See Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). 2. California law is controlling over the issues regarding agency. See

C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 479 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Mallott & Peterson v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 98 F.3d 1170, 1173 n.2. (9th Cir. 1996) for the proposition that generally, an agent's authority derives from state law, even where the substantive dispute concerns federal law). 3. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is

appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Brave New Films has properly pleaded (1) a claim for knowing misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f); and (2) factual allegations sufficient to reasonably infer an agency relationship between defendants Savage and OTRN. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2317. Moreover, the issue of agency is a question of fact. See C.A.R., 213 F.3d at 480 ("existence of an agency and the extent of an agent's authority is a question of fact"). Questions of fact are not suited for determination on a motion to dismiss. See Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 242 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1957). Accordingly, Defendant's motion should be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED:______________________

Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge

2

CV 08-04703 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS