Bratt v. MGA Entertainment et al

Filing 41

ORDER Denying Motion To Set Aside Dismissal And For Leave To Amend [ECF No. 38 ]. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Huie on 09/25/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(stn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 23-cv-1467-RSH-VET

BRYAN MARSHALL BRATT,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

MGA ENTERTAINMENT et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

15

[ECF No. 38]

16
17
18

This is the second of two substantially similar lawsuits for copyright infringement

19

that Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed against Defendant MGA Entertainment, Inc., and

20

others. Plaintiff filed his first lawsuit, Bratt v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., No. 22-cv-1984-

21

RSH-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (“Bratt I”), on December 14, 2022. On July 6, 2023, the Court

22

granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the first

23

action without prejudice.

24

Approximately two months later, on August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant

25

lawsuit (“Bratt II”). ECF No. 1. On January 22, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s

26

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, based on Plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege

27

substantial similarities between the protectable elements of his work and MGA’s work.

28
1
23-cv-1467-RSH-VET

1

The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 15; see also ECF No.

2

31 (amended order).

3

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 16, 2024. ECF

4

No. 16. On April 5, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss. ECF

5

No. 30. The Court “conclude[d], as it did before, that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged

6

substantial similarities between the protectable elements of Plaintiff’s work and MGA’s

7

works.” Id. at 7. This time, the Court dismissed the FAC without leave to amend, on the

8

grounds that “the Amended Complaint largely failed to fix the deficiencies in the Court’s

9

previous order,” and indeed was “less detailed” and “less cogent” that the original

10

complaint. Id. at 8.

11

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal pursuant to Rules

12

59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for leave to file a Second

13

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 38. Defendant opposes. ECF No. 40. As set forth below,

14

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

Rule 60(b) provides that, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party

17

or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following

18

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; [and] (2) newly

19

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in

20

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Rule 60(b) “attempts to strike a proper

21

balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that

22

justice should be done.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

23

11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and

24

Procedure § 2851 (2d ed. 1995)).1

25

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also invokes Rule 59(e), which provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend
a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Here, the case was dismissed on April 5, 2024, and so Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e)
2
23-cv-1467-RSH-VET

1

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court should set aside the

2

dismissal and grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint because “Plaintiff

3

presents new evidence and a clearer articulation of the substantial similarities between the

4

copyrighted works involved, demonstrating a manifest error of law in the prior dismissal.”

5

ECF No. 38 at 1.

6

Plaintiff does not identify any new evidence, in the sense of newly discovered factual

7

material. Instead, by new evidence he appears to refer to a new articulation of copying that

8

he is prepared to provide the Court. ECF No. 38 at 9 (“The plaintiff has now detailed

9

precise lyrical phrases and musical compositions that have been directly copied by the

10

defendants.”). Plaintiff does not provide this new articulation. Plaintiff also argues that the

11

Court erred in dismissing his FAC for failure to plead substantial similarity, and states “this

12

was due to an incomplete presentation of the facts regarding the specific elements copied

13

by the defendants.” Id. He adds, “[g]iven the new evidence and clearer articulation of the

14

points of similarity, a reevaluation of the substantial similarity between the works is

15

warranted.” Id.

16

The Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. Plaintiff has not come

17

forward with “newly discovered evidence,” or established that the dismissal was the

18

product of “mistake.” The Court also declines to grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended

19

complaint. In the Court’s order of April 5, 2024, the Court determined that Plaintiff was

20

not entitled to leave to amend. The case has been closed. Additionally, Plaintiff has not

21

shown that a Second Amended Complaint would cure the deficiencies identified by the

22

Court in its previous orders.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

motion would be untimely. The Court considers Plaintiff’s motion within the framework
of Rule 60(b).
3
23-cv-1467-RSH-VET

1
2
3
4
5

II.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and for leave to

amend is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2024

6
7
8

______________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
23-cv-1467-RSH-VET