Marshall et al v. John Huffman IV, Real Content Media Group et al

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/8/2012)

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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
JOHN HUFFMAN IV, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is scheduled for a hearing on

15

January 13, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is

16

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth

17

below, the Court GRANTS the motion. The fourth amended complaint shall be filed no later than

18

January 13, 2012. The January 13, 2012 case management conference is rescheduled to March 2,

19

2012 at 3:00 pm.

20
21

DISCUSSION

22

Plaintiff Preston Marshall, now represented by new counsel, seeks to file a fourth amended

23

complaint to correct mistakes made by his former counsel in the third amended complaint, as well as

24

to streamline this case by deleting unnecessary or improper causes of action included in the third

25

amended complaint. One proposed amendment is the addition of UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”) as

26

a defendant; Island Def Jam Music, a division of UMG, was previously dismissed from the second

27

amended complaint after plaintiff’s former counsel failed to oppose Island Def Jam Music’s motion to

28

dismiss and represented to the Court that plaintiff did not wish to pursue his claims against Island Def

1

Jam Music. The second amended complaint alleged, inter alia, a claim against Island Def Jam Music

2

Inc. for copyright infringement of a sound recording, while the proposed fourth amended complaint

3

seeks to allege a claim against UMG for copyright infringement of a musical composition. Plaintiff has

4

filed a declaration in support of the instant motion stating that he was unaware his previous counsel had

5

failed to oppose Island Def Jam Music’s motion to dismiss, that he never told his previous lawyer that

6

he did not want to pursue his claims against UMG, and that he still wants to pursue his claims against

7

UMG.
UMG argues that plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the complaint to add UMG back

9

as a defendant because the Court granted Island Def Jam Music Group’s motion to dismiss “without

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

leave to amend.” UMG argues that such a dismissal operates as a dismissal with prejudice, and relatedly

11

that the proposed fourth amended complaint against UMG is barred by res judicata. UMG also asserts

12

that plaintiff’s motion is an “improper end-run” around the high standard governing a motion for

13

reconsideration, that the alleged incompetence of plaintiff’s former counsel does not permit plaintiff to

14

resuscitate claims against UMG that have been dismissed, and that plaintiff and his counsel should be

15

sanctioned for unreasonably multiplying proceedings in this case by filing the instant motion to amend.

16

The Court concludes that plaintiff should be permitted to file the proposed fourth amended

17

complaint. Ordinarily, the Court would have granted plaintiff leave to amend his claims against Island

18

Def Jam Music Group when the Court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

19

The only reason the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against Island Def Jam Music Group without

20

leave to amend was because plaintiff’s former counsel stated at the December 9, 2010 hearing that

21

plaintiff did not want to pursue his claims against that defendant. In light of the unusual situation

22

presented here, the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to allow plaintiff to amend the

23

complaint. Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal policy in favor of allowing amendment

24

unless it is clear that “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez

25

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). UMG

26

does not contend that the proposed amendment is futile, and plaintiff seeks to allege a new and different

27

copyright claim than the claim that the Court dismissed in the December 9, 2010 order. Further, given

28

the early stages of this litigation, UMG will not be prejudiced by the amendment. Although this case
2

1

has been pending for some time, it is still at the pleadings stage and none of the defendants have been

2

served with the third amended complaint.

3

The Court also finds that sanctions against plaintiff are not warranted. The Court disagrees with

4

UMG’s assertions that plaintiff and his new counsel are vexatiously multiplying proceedings. The Court

5

believes it is in all of the parties’ interests to move forward with this litigation in an expeditious and

6

cooperative fashion. Relatedly, with regard to UMG’s contention that plaintiff should have filed a

7

motion for reconsideration instead of a motion for leave to amend, the Court finds that given the

8

procedural posture and circumstances of this case, plaintiff did not act improperly.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION

11

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

12

Docket No. 51. The fourth amended complaint must be filed no later than January 13, 2011. Plaintiff

13

shall promptly serve the complaint on all defendants. The Court will hold a case management

14

conference on March 3, 2012 at 3:00 pm.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 8, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3