Davis v. EMI Group Limited

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Dismiss. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

MARTHA DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Case No.: 12-cv-1602 YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTION TO DISMISS

VS.

CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, ET AL.

13

Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff Martha Davis (“Davis”) brings this action as a member of the music group, “The
Motels,” and a shareholder, beneficiary, and/or successor-in-interest of the now-dissolved The
Motels Music Corporation, Inc. She brings the instant complaint alleging a nationwide class action
for breach of standard recording contracts and for statutory violations of California law against
Defendant Capitol Records, LLC (“Capitol”).1 Davis alleges that Capitol failed to account properly
for royalties stemming from the licensing of musical performances or recordings produced by Davis
and putative class members under contract with Capitol, which were then were utilized by digital
content providers, such as music download providers, music streaming providers, and ringtone
providers, for digital download, streaming and distribution.
The parties are before the Court on Capitol's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and to strike certain allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f). The parties briefed the

27
1

28

Defendants EMI Group Limited and EMI Group, Inc. were voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiff on March 12, 2013. (See Dkt. No. 67.)

1

matter and the Court heard oral argument on October 2, 2012. The parties thereafter submitted

2

supplemental briefing as requested by the Court at the hearing.
Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the

3
4

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby Orders that the Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Certain

5

Allegations is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

6

I.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
Davis alleges claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, open book account, breach

7
8

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition. All claims arise from

9

allegations that Capitol failed to pay royalties under the contracts between Capitol and The Motels

required to pay a certain royalty for record (or “phonorecord”) sales, and a higher royalty for a

12
Northern District of California

Music Corporation, Inc. (SAC ¶¶ 133-163.) She alleges that under the contracts, Capitol was

11

United States District Court

10

“license” of “masters.” (SAC ¶¶ 69-92.) Davis claims that Capitol improperly treated the sale of the

13

group’s recordings through digital content providers as a “phonorecord sale” instead of a “license.”

14

(SAC ¶ 92.) According to Davis, Capitol should have treated such sales differently for royalty

15

purposes, because Capitol allegedly “licenses” “masters” to digital content providers for permanent

16

downloads. (SAC ¶ 91.)

17

II.

18

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE MOTION
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims

19

alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock. Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

Review is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. Allarcom Pay Television. Ltd. v.

21

Gen. Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385 (9th Cir. 1995). All allegations of material fact are

22

taken as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 94 (2007). However, legally conclusory

23

statements not supported by actual factual allegations need not be accepted. See Ashcroft v.

24

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “When the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not

25

raise a claim of entitlement to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

26

544, 558 (2007). Thus, a motion to dismiss will be granted if the complaint does not proffer

27

enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See id. at 558-59.

28

2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

Request for Judicial Notice

3

Capitol argues that the Court should take judicial notice of the agreements referenced in the

4

SAC, which are attached to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. (Dkt. No. 57.) When a

5

complaint specifically refers to a document, the document or its terms are central to the allegations,

6

and no party questions its authenticity, the court may properly consider the document in ruling on a

7

motion to dismiss. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d

8

1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the agreements are central to the allegations of the complaint.

9

Thus the Court finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of them for purposes of this motion.

10

B.

Limitation of Claims

11

Capitol first argues that Davis’s claims are barred to the extent she seeks royalties for more

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

than three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, since the terms of the agreement provide for a

13

three-year contractual limitations period. Davis’s contracts with Capitol all required that, unless

14

written notice is provided to Capitol within a specified number of years (first three, later four years),

15

royalty statements “shall be final, conclusive and binding.” (See SAC ¶¶ 113-114.) Capitol argues

16

Davis did not allege she made any objection to the royalty statements at issue, but now seeks relief

17

for underpayment of royalties going back more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint.

18

Capitol’s arguments do not support dismissal, or partial dismissal of the claims. The

19

allegations here arguably support a basis for tolling of the contractual limitations period. First,

20

“[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-

21

Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-07 (2005). “A motion to dismiss based on the running of the

22

statute of limitations period may be granted only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the

23

required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.” Supermail

24

Cargo v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotation omitted). Second,

25

where the allegations of the complaint indicate that plaintiff was prevented from learning the true

26

facts by defendant’s misrepresentations or concealment, application of the delayed discovery rule is

27

particularly appropriate. See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)

28

3

1

(franchisees prevented from learning of breach of agreements by defendant’s misrepresentations and

2

forgery); Weatherly v. Universal Music Group, 125 Cal.App.4th 913 (2004) (contractual limitations

3

provision tolled where songwriter did not learn of breach of royalty contract due to music publisher’s

4

misrepresentations). Under California law, a plaintiff need not plead deliberate concealment, but

5

must simply offer facts to show that: “[t]he injury or the act causing the injury, or both, have been

6

difficult for the plaintiff to detect”; “the defendant has been in a far superior position to comprehend

7

the act and the injury”; and “the defendant had reason to believe the plaintiff remained ignorant he

8

had been wronged.” Gryczman v. 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd., 107 Cal. App. 4th 1, 5-6 (2003) quoting

9

April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 831 (1983).

10

Here, Davis alleges that Capitol knowingly underpaid her and other class members by

Northern District of California

reporting digital download licenses as sales of physical record sales, and concealed the fact that

12
United States District Court

11

Capitol improperly accounted for sales. (SAC ¶ 116.) She further alleges that breaches of contracts

13

were difficult if not impossible to detect based only on the royalty statements, since simply moving

14

licenses from one category and reporting them in another would be a serious breach but would not be

15

readily perceivable. (SAC ¶ 117.) Davis alleges that the royalty statements she received were

16

misleading and did not put her on notice that Capitol was actually licensing digital masters to third-

17

parties while reporting those earnings at the “records sold” rate rather than the “masters licensed”

18

rate. (See SAC ¶¶ 116, 117.) Thus, Davis has pleaded a basis for tolling the contractual limitations

19

period based upon delayed discovery.

20

The case law cited by Capitol is distinguishable. Unlike Gutierrez v. Mofid, 39 Cal. 3d 892,

21

899 (1985), the facts here do not present a situation in which Davis knew of her injury but failed to

22

file suit because she was dissuaded by professional advice that she had no claim. Likewise, in

23

Matsumoto v. Republic Ins. Co., 792 F.2d 869, 872 (9th Cir. 1986), plaintiffs knew of and made a

24

claim to their insurance company, but failed to sue after the insurance company denied that claim.

25

Capitol argues that Davis must not only allege a basis for the delayed discovery rule, but also

26

that she could not have discovered that basis earlier despite reasonable diligence. Capitol contends

27

that Davis was not reasonably diligent in bringing her claims since she did not exercise her

28

4

1

contractual right to audit her royalty statements. First, this argument assumes facts not before the

2

Court. On a motion to dismiss, a court cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings and documents

3

properly subject to judicial notice. Supermail Cargo, 68 F.3d at 1206. Second, even in the face of a

4

failure to exercise her audit rights, a finding of lack of diligence cannot be assumed since Davis

5

alleges that she was hindered from acting any earlier due to the defendant’s misrepresentations and

6

concealments. See Weatherly, 125 Cal.App.4th at 920 (reversing trial court’s finding that claims

7

were barred for lack of diligence in exercise of audit rights).

8

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss on limitations grounds is DENIED.

9

C.

10

Declaratory Relief Claim

Capitol moves to dismiss Davis’s claim for declaratory relief as duplicative of her claim for

Northern District of California

breach of contract. Declaratory relief is meant to resolve uncertainties and disputes that may lead to

12
United States District Court

11

future litigation. See U.S. v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1356-57 (9th Cir. 1985). The existence of

13

another adequate remedy does not preclude a declaratory judgment. Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 57; 28

14

U.S.C. § 2201. As the Advisory Committee comments to Rule 57 indicate, pleading a claim for

15

declaratory relief as an alternative or cumulative remedy does not render it inappropriate. See

16

Tierney v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 449, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing Advisory Committee comments).

17

However, courts have dismissed companion claims for declaratory relief where the breach of

18

contract claims resolved the dispute completely and rendered additional relief inappropriate. See

19

StreamCast Networks, Inc. v. IBIS LLC, CV05-04239MMM (EX), 2006 WL 5720345 (C.D. Cal.

20

May 2, 2006) (citing numerous cases).

21

Here, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, that declaratory relief would be

22

duplicative or otherwise inappropriate such that it should be dismissed at the pleading stage. Davis

23

alleges claims for herself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. She alleges that the

24

declaratory relief claim is for a determination that “the pertinent recording agreements obligate EMI

25

to pay and/or credit Davis and other class members the percentage specified for licensing, rather than

26

for sales, when EMI licenses the master recordings of Plaintiff and other Class members to Digital

27
28

5

1

Content Providers.” (SAC ¶ 143.) Thus, it is not clear that resolution of the breach of contract claim

2

would render the need for declaratory relief unnecessary.

3

Capitol argues that the district court’s decision in Kho v. Wells Fargo & Co., SACV 12-0847

4

DOC, 2012 WL 3240041 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) dictates a different result. The court there

5

dismissed a claim for declaratory relief as “superfluous and unnecessary” in the context of

6

dismissing all other claims on their merits, with prejudice. Id. at *9. Here, Davis has alleged facts to

7

support her contract claim. Alleging a declaratory relief claim based upon the same facts is not

8

inappropriate.

9

The motion to dismiss the declaratory relief is, therefore, DENIED.

10

D.

Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

11

Capitol moves to dismiss Davis’s fourth claim for breach of the implied covenant of good

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

faith and fair dealing on the grounds that it is duplicative of her breach of contract claim. The Court

13

disagrees.

14

The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied by California law in every contract,

15

exists to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party's right to receive the

16

benefits of the agreement. Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 349 (2000). “The covenant is

17

implied as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from

18

engaging in conduct that frustrates the other party's rights to the benefits of the agreement” even if it

19

does not technically violated the express terms of the agreement. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., 11

20

Cal.4th 1, 36 (1995). Thus, where a contracting party had an obligation to deal fairly with its

21

contracting partner in calculating license fees, it violated that duty by using a method that unfairly

22

undervalued fees owed even if there was no express contractual obligation to calculate them

23

differently. Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 184 Cal. App. 4th 1298, 1308 (2010) (breach of the

24

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing established where movie studio used a straight-lining

25

method instead of considering relative worth in licensing packages). A claim for breach of the

26

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not duplicative of a breach of contract claim when

27

a plaintiff alleges that the defendant acted in bad faith to frustrate the benefits of the alleged contract.

28

6

1

See Celador Internat'l Ltd. v. The Walt Disney Co., 347 F.Supp.2d 846, 853 (C.D.Cal. 2004) (citing

2

Guz, 24 Cal.4th at 353 n. 18); Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371,

3

1395 (1990) (refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities which unfairly frustrates the agreed

4

common purposes and reasonable expectations of the other party constitutes claim for breach of good

5

faith and fair dealing, whether or not it also constitutes breach of a consensual term).

6

Here, Davis has alleged that Capitol’s conduct of improperly accounting for the monies owed

7

to Davis and the class breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that this was

8

conduct deprived her of the benefits of the contract. (SAC ¶¶ 151-154.) She alleges that Capitol

9

knowingly underpaid her by reporting digital download licenses as physical record sales, and

that Capitol vetted the policy of mischaracterizing the sales and decided to adopt the policy to avoid

12
Northern District of California

concealed the fact that it improperly accounted for those sales. (SAC ¶¶ 116-119.) She also alleges

11

United States District Court

10

its contractual obligations in favor of higher profits, which at the same time characterizing its

13

agreements with digital music providers as being “in the interest of its recording artists.” (SAC ¶

14

93.) These allegations are sufficient to state a claim separate and distinct from her breach of contract

15

claim.

16

E.

Unfair Competition Claim

17

Davis alleges her claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code section

18

17200, California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), based upon all three prongs of the statute –

19

that is, unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct. Capitol seeks to dismiss the claim to the extent it is

20

based upon either unlawful or fraudulent conduct.

21
22

1.

Fraudulent Prong

As to the fraudulent prong, Capitol argues that Davis has not alleged fraud with sufficient

23

particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Capitol argues that,

24

because the claim is based upon fraud, Davis must set forth the “who, what, when, where, and how

25

of the misconduct alleged.” See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

Furthermore, since Davis allege fraud against a corporation, she “must allege the names of the

27

persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they

28

7

1

spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” Lazar v. Sup. Ct., 12 Cal. 4th 631,

2

645 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Davis argues that she has alleged the fraud here with sufficient specificity to permit Capitol

4

to answer. The SAC alleges that Capitol: contrived a method of accounting for licensing income that

5

knowingly applied incorrect formulas for calculating royalties in its accounting statements to Davis

6

(SAC ¶¶ 8, 91-92); approved this policy and practice in order to reap profits by avoiding its

7

contractual obligations (SAC ¶ 158); and yet repeatedly made statements designed to lead members

8

of the public into believing that its accounting practices were meant to benefit Davis and the other

9

artists owed royalties (id.). Thus, the SAC alleges that Capitol knowingly breached its agreements

them of monies owed to them. (SAC ¶¶ 116-119, 158.) Davis and the class were led to believe that

12
Northern District of California

and employed devices to conceal these facts from Davis and other class members in order to deprive

11

United States District Court

10

the royalty rates paid accurately reflected the amounts actually owed to them and accurately

13

accounted for the nature of Capitol’s agreements with its third-party vendors. (SAC ¶¶ 92-93.)

14

Davis further argues that the Court should apply the more relaxed standard appropriate to

15

fraud-based claims in which the specific facts as to who engaged in the misleading conduct are

16

peculiarly within the control of defendants, citing Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671-73 (9th

17

Cir. 1993). Capitol protests that this exception should not apply because Davis’s allegations as to

18

Capitol’s knowledge of the fraud are only on information and belief. However, Rule 9(b) is clear

19

that the heightened pleading requirements apply only to the circumstances constituting the fraud.

20

“Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.” Fed.

21

Rules Civ. Proc. 9.

22

Davis’s allegations regarding the circumstances of the fraud here are sufficiently particular.

23

The facts as to who made the decisions regarding the alleged misleading royalty statements are facts

24

peculiarly within the control of Capitol. Davis’s general allegation of Capitol’s knowledge is

25

permissible.

26

//

27

//

28

8

2.

1

Unlawful Prong

2

As to the unlawful prong, Capitol argues that Davis has not identified any specific law or

3

regulation allegedly violated, but merely relies on the same allegations as her breach of contract

4

claim. However, common law theories can establish a predicate “unlawful” act for purposes of the

5

UCL. See Cmty. Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 886, 891 (2001)

6

(“an ‘unlawful’ business practice . . . [under the UCL] is one that violates an existing law, including

7

case law”); Mercado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 824, 828 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2003) (“California courts

8

have not foreclosed common law theories as a basis for actions pursuant to [the UCL]”); Gabana

9

Gulf Distribution, Ltd. v. Gap Int’l Sales, Inc., 2008 WL 111223, at *10 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2008)

yet foreclosed common law theories – such as breach of the covenant of good faith – as a basis for

12
Northern District of California

(noting that “[a]lthough the state of § 17200 jurisprudence is in rapid flux, California courts have not

11

United States District Court

10

actions pursuant to § 17200.”). Where, as here, the complaint alleges systemic conduct meant to

13

breach the terms of, or deny the benefits of, agreements between the defendant and a group of

14

similarly situated parties, it is sufficient state a claim for an unfair business practice in violation of

15

the UCL. See James v. UMG Recording, Inc., 2011 WL 5192476, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

16

(“the Court finds that plaintiffs have alleged more than just a breach of contract because the

17

complaints allege that UMG engaged in a broad scheme to underpay numerous royalty

18

participants”); see also CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 479 F.3d 1099, 1107

19

(9th Cir. 2007) (UCL claim based on unlawful prong alleged based upon common law intentional

20

interference with employment contracts).2 The facts alleged here support a claim under the UCL’s

21

unlawful prong.

22
23
24
25
26
27

2

Sybersound Records, cited by Capitol, is distinguishable. There, the plaintiff sought to
base its claim for violation of the UCL based upon contracts to which it was not a party, but instead
were agreements “among sophisticated parties who are not all parties to this lawsuit.” Sybersound
Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). As the Ninth Circuit there noted, a
“breach of contract may form the predicate for a section 17200 claim, provided it also constitutes
conduct that is unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Id. at 1152 (internal quotation and citation
omitted). The court’s decision turned on the standing issues raised by the posture of the case more
than whether the underlying violation was contractual in nature.

28

9

1

The motion to dismiss the UCL claim is DENIED.

2

F.

3

Capitol also seeks to eliminate Davis’s claim for punitive damages in connection with her

Punitive Damages

4

claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.3 California law does not allow

5

recovery of tort damages for contract-based claims except “in limited circumstances, generally

6

involving a special relationship.” Diaz v. Fed. Express Corp., 373 F. Supp.2d 1034, 1066 (C.D. Cal.

7

2005). “Because the covenant of good faith and fair dealing essentially is a contract term that aims

8

to effectuate the contractual intentions of the parties, ‘compensation for its breach has almost always

9

been limited to contract rather than tort remedies.’” Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood

Partners 21 Cal.4th 28, 43 (1999).) The lone exception recognized by the California Supreme Court

12
Northern District of California

Apartments, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1054 (2009) (quoting Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot

11

United States District Court

10

to date is for tort damages arising from bad faith breach of an insurance contract. See Cates

13

Construction, 21 Cal. 4th at 43 (1999); see also Spinks, 171 Cal. App. 4th at 1054 (“breach of the

14

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will not give rise to punitive damages” in

15

“noninsurance cases”).

16

Davis concedes that, under California law, punitive damages generally are not available on a

17

claim for breach of the covenant outside the insurance context, but argues that the limited exception

18

should be extended here because the relationship between recording artists and record companies is

19

sufficiently similar to the relationship between insureds and their insurers. While Davis has stated a

20

claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, her arguments for extending

21

California law on punitive damages past the line clearly drawn in Spinks are not persuasive.

22
23
24
3

25
26
27

Capitol moves either to strike the punitive damages claim under Rule 12(f) or to dismiss it
under Rule 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit has made plain that a court cannot strike certain damages
under Rule 12(f) based upon an argument that they are precluded by law, but has endorsed
dismissing them under Rule 12(b)(6) when appropriate. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618
F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus the Court determines this issue under Rule 12(b)(6).

28

10

1
2

The motion is therefore GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the punitive damages
request.4 The request for punitive damages, paragraph 167 of the SAC, is DISMISSED.

3

G.

Motion to Strike Quoted Portion of ReDigi Complaint

4

Paragraph 99 of Davis’s SAC quotes a portion of a complaint filed in the Southern District of

5

New York, Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., No. 1:12-cv- 00095-RJS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012)

6

(“ReDigi”). Defendant argues that Davis has misquoted the complaint in a way that alters its

7

meaning and that the statement should be stricken as “immaterial, impertinent, [and] scandalous”

8

under FRCP 12(f).

9

Davis’s SAC alleges this portion of the ReDigi complaint to establish inconsistencies in

received by consumers are not phonorecords for purposes of reselling them consistent with the first

12
Northern District of California

Capitol’s position on the allegations in the SAC. In ReDigi, Capitol alleges that digital downloads

11

United States District Court

10

sale doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 109. (SAC ¶ ¶ 98, 99.) Yet, with respect to

13

Davis and others, Capitol treats digital downloads as sales of phonorecords for royalty purposes.

14

The actual text of Capitol’s ReDigi complaint read:

15
16
17
18
19

. . . Plaintiff also distributes and licenses its sound recordings in the form of
digital audio files, which are marketed and distributed online, and delivered to
consumer via the Internet. Legitimate avenues for the digital distribution of
music exist through authorized services, such as Apple’s iTunes and Amazon’s
MP3 Music Service, which provide these sound recording for consumers pursuant
to agreements that the services negotiated with Plaintiff.
Davis purported to quote that same language as follows:

20
21

“Plaintiff also redistributes and licenses its sound recordings in the form of digital
audio files, which are marketed and distributed online and delivered to the

22

4

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff notes that other states permit punitive damages for breach of contract in a wider
variety of situations. See, e.g., Clarendon Mobile Home Sale, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 381 A.2d 1063,
1065 (Vt. 1977) (where “breach has the character of a willful and wanton or fraudulent tort”); Boise
Dodge, Inc. v. Clark, 453 P.2d 551, 553-56 (Idaho 1969) (where there is “fraud, malice, oppression
or other sufficient reason”); Perry v. Green, 437 S.E. 2d 150, 152 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993) (when the
breach of contract is accompanied by a fraudulent act such as “any act characterized by dishonesty in
fact, unfair dealing, or the unlawful appropriation of another’s property by design.”). The Court’s
decision to dismiss the punitive damages claim based on the current allegations of the SAC is
without prejudice to some future showing that the applicable law would permit Plaintiff to amend to
include such a claim for relief.
11

1

consumer via the Internet through, inter alia, iTunes and Amazon.” (Emphasis
added.)

2

(SAC ¶ 99.) While it is clear that Davis did not directly and accurately quote the

3

language from the ReDigi complaint, the error does not change the meaning of the

4

ReDigi allegations in any significant way. The Court does not condone Davis’s

5

misquotation, but neither does it find the allegation “immaterial, impertinent, or

6

scandalous” as set forth in Rule 12(f). The motion to strike is therefore DENIED.

7

CONCLUSION

8

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the request for punitive damages only, and is

9
10
11

otherwise DENIED. The motion to strike paragraph 99 is DENIED. Capitol shall file and serve its
answer to the SAC no later than May 10, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

DATE: April 18, 2013

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12