Broadcast Music, Inc et al v. Roascio

Filing 17

ORDER TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC.; MJ
PUBLISHING TRUST d/b/a MIJAC MUSIC;
FOURTEENTH HOUR MUSIC INC.;
COTILLION MUSIC, INC. d/b/a PRONTO
MUSIC; HOUSE OF CASH, INC.; RICK’S
MUSIC, INC.; RED SEA SONGS; RONDOR
MUSIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a
IRVING MUSIC; SONGS OF UNIVERSAL,
INC.; KINGS ROAD MUSIC; PAUL SIMON
MUSIC; EMI VIRGIN SONGS, INC. d/b/a
EMI LONGITUDE MUSIC; SONY/ATV
SONGS LLC; THE BERNARD EDWARDS
COMPANY LLC; PAINTED DESERT
MUSIC CORPORATION,,

No. C 12-04740 LB
ORDER TO PROVIDE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

18
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
21

RHONDA ROSE ROASCIO, individually
and d/b/a MOM & POP’S SALOON,

22

Defendants.
___________________________________/

23
24

Plaintiff Broadcast Music Inc. (“BMI”), and the ten other Plaintiffs (the “Copyright Owners”),

25

sued Rhonda Roascio individually and doing business as Mom & Pop’s Saloon (together, “Ms.

26

Roascio”) for copyright infringement. Compl., ECF No. 1.1 Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Roascio

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 12-04740 LB
ORDER

1

infringed the Copyright Owners’ rights in ten musical compositions by performing the songs in

2

Mom and Pop’s Saloon. Id. ¶¶ 20, 23. Mr. Roascio has not answered or appeared and Plaintiffs

3

have moved for default judgment. See Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”), ECF No. 15; see

4

generally Docket.

5

In order to evaluate Plaintiffs’ motion for Default Judgment, the court must consider the merits

6

of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986).

7

Plaintiffs claim that BMI is a nonexclusive licensee of the Copyright Owners. See Wolfe Decl.,

8

ECF No. 15-4 ¶ 2. The court appreciates that courts have granted default judgment when a non-

9

exclusive licensee such as BMI joins with a plaintiff who owns the copyright for the music

471852 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2012). Probably there is some delineated exclusivity over the licensing of

12
For the Northern District of California

compilation at issue. See, e.g., Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Kiflit, No. 12-CV-00856-LHK, 2012 WL

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

the public performance rights, and maybe the allegation about that in the complaint is sufficient

13

when BMI includes the owners in the lawsuit. Still, to the extent that it raises an issue about

14

standing, the undersigned would appreciate it if BMI would file a short (one to two page) informal

15

letter brief on the issue no later than Wednesday, June 26, 2013, at noon. It does not have to be that

16

detailed.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2013

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 12-04740 LB
ORDER

2