Willis v. Scorpio Music (Black Scorpio) S.A. et al

Filing 107

ORDER: On 5/15/2017, Intervenor Karen Willis filed an ex parte motion for clarification or reconsideration of this Court's 5/12/2017 order. (ECF No. 104 ) Intervenor's motion is hereby denied. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/17/2017. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTOR WILLIS,

Case No.: 15-cv-1078-BTM-AGS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER

SCORPIO MUSIC (BLACK
SCORPIO) S.A., CANT STOP
PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND
HENRI BELOLO,

15
16
17

Defendant.

18
19
20
21

On May 12, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his action
without prejudice. (ECF No. 103.)
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice because

22

under United States v. Ito, 472 Fed. Appx. 841, 842 (9th Cir. 2012), Defendants

23

would suffer legal prejudice if the Court granted the motion. While the Court

24

could have followed the approach other district courts have taken and dismissed

25

Plaintiff’s copyright claim with prejudice, this is not the remedy that Plaintiff

26

petitioned the Court for. See GDS Indus., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-

27

1506, 2016 WL 6962866, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016) (applying Ito and

28

dismissing Plaintiff’s action with prejudice); Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Romeo &
1
15-cv-1078-BTM-AGS

1

Juliette, Inc., No. 15-cv-2812, 2016 WL 5842187, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2016)

2

(dismissing plaintiff’s patent infringement claim with prejudice while dismissing

3

the breach of contract claim without prejudice). The Court believes that it would

4

be unfair to Plaintiff to dismiss his copyright claim with prejudice, and preclude

5

him from litigating it in the future, when he did not move the Court to do so.

6

Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

7

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2017, Intervenor Karen Willis filed an ex parte

8

motion for clarification or reconsideration of this Court’s May 12, 2017 order.

9

(ECF No. 104.) Intervenor’s motion is hereby denied.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: May 17, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
15-cv-1078-BTM-AGS