Marshall et al v. John Huffman IV, Real Content Media Group et al
Filing
133
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HUFFMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS 120 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
PRESTON D. MARSHALL,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C 10-1665 SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
JOHN HUFFMAN IV, et al.,
Defendants.
/
13
14
Defendant John Huffman’s motion to dismiss the claims asserted against him in the Fourth
15
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is scheduled for a hearing on August 24, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local
16
Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument,
17
and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.
18
19
LEGAL STANDARD
20
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it
21
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
22
the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
23
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff
24
to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
25
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While courts do not require “heightened fact pleading
26
of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative
27
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, 555.
28
In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court
1
must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the
2
plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the
3
court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions
4
of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
5
6
DISCUSSION
7
Defendant Huffman moves to dismiss the claims asserted against him, arguing that plaintiff has
8
failed to adequately allege the copyright infringement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach
9
of contract claims against Huffman.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
I.
Copyright Claim
12
Huffman argues that plaintiff has failed adequately to allege his copyright claim, because
13
plaintiff fails to allege that defendant Huffman “copied” plaintiff’s work, and because the allegation that
14
Huffman “distributed” plaintiff’s copyrighted work without permission is insufficient to support the
15
copyright infringement claim since it is devoid of supporting facts.
16
argument is not well taken. A claim for copyright infringement can be based on allegations of
17
unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(3) (exclusive rights protected by
18
Copyright Act include right to distribution of copyrighted work). The Fourth Amended Complaint
19
adequately explains the facts supporting the improper distribution allegations: it alleges that Huffman
20
distributed without permission plaintiff’s song “Are You the One,” in violation of the Copyright Act.
21
See Fourth Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 34-35.
Motion at 1-2. Huffman’s
22
Huffman also argues that plaintiff cannot maintain a copyright cause of action for unauthorized
23
distribution because the Fourth Amendment Complaint admits that plaintiff gave Huffman the right to
24
distribute the song. Motion at 4-5. However, the Fourth Amended Complaint does not allege that
25
plaintiff gave Huffman the right to “distribute” his recordings, but instead references an alleged
26
agreement that Huffman “market” plaintiff’s recordings. See FAC, ¶¶ 52, 59. There are no allegations
27
in the complaint that undermine plaintiff’s claim of unauthorized distribution in violation of the
28
Copyright Act.
2
1
II.
Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation
Huffman argues that the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims fail because the copyright
3
infringement claim fails. Huffman contends that the copyright infringement claim forms the basis of
4
the fraud-based claims but fails to meet the heightened pleading standards required for fraud-based
5
claims with respect to knowledge of falsity/intent. Motion at 6. The Court has already found that the
6
copyright claim is adequately alleged. The Court also finds that plaintiff has adequately stated the “how,
7
when, what, where and whom” elements necessary to support his fraud and negligent misrepresentation
8
claims. See FAC, ¶¶12, 20-24, 41-45, 47-51. With respect to intent, the Court finds that the generalized
9
allegations of knowledge and intent made in the complaint (FAC, ¶¶ 42, 48-49), are sufficient at this
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
stage. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b) (“intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind
11
may be alleged generally”).
12
13
III.
Breach of Contract
14
Finally, Huffman argues that plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a breach of contract
15
claim. Specifically Huffman argues that the claim is not adequately pled because other than the
16
agreement to “share in the profits” from the marketing of plaintiff’s songs, there are no facts alleged
17
about how the parties were to be compensated or other facts regarding the “terms” of the parties’
18
agreement. Motion at 7. The Court finds that the existence of, performance under, breach, and damage
19
due to the breach of an alleged oral and/or implied-in-fact contract have been adequately alleged. See
20
FAC, ¶¶ 53-57, 59-63.
21
22
23
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
27
28
3
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?