PK Studios, Inc. v. R.L.R. Investments, LLC et al
Filing
49
ORDER denying 30 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/4/2016. (MAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
PK STUDIOS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-389-FtM-99CM
R.L.R.
INVESTMENTS,
LLC,
EAGLES LANDING VILLAS AT
GOLDEN OCALA, LLC, GOLDEN
OCALA GOLF & EQUESTRIAN CLUB
MANAGMENT,
LLC,
STOCK
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and BRIAN
STOCK,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement
(Doc. #30) filed on September 30, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Response
(Doc. #35) on November 10, 2015 to which Defendants filed a Reply
(Doc. #47) on December 22, 2015.
For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is denied.
I.
Plaintiff PK Studios, Inc. (PK Studios) has filed a threecount Complaint (Doc. #1) against Defendants R.L.R. Investments,
LLC (RLR), Eagles Landing Villas at Golden Ocala, LLC (Eagles
Landing), Golden Ocala Golf & Equestrian Club Management, LLC
(Golden Ocala), Stock Development, LLC (Stock Development), and
Brian Stock alleging that Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff’s
architectural designs.
The underlying facts, as set forth in the
Complaint, are as follows:
PK Studios is a Florida architectural firm.
(Id. at ¶ 11.)
In 2004, PK Studios entered into a contract with Stock Development
and Brian Stock to create a master plan and architectural designs
(the Work) for homes in communities known as Olé and Paseo.
(Id.)
PK
Stock
Studios
completed
Development.
the
Work
(Id. at ¶ 12.)
and
delivered
it
to
In 2009, PK Studios and Stock
Development executed a release agreement (the Release) pursuant to
which PK Studios released the Work to Stock Development in exchange
for a lump sum payment.
(Id. at ¶ 13.)
The Release specified
that Stock Development could use the Work for the Olé and Paseo
communities and for any other project solely developed by Stock
Development.
(Id. at ¶ 13.)
The Release further specified that
PK Studios retained all copyright and intellectual property rights
to the Work and that any future architect’s use of the Work was
prohibited absent an agreement indemnifying PK Studios.
(Id. at
¶¶ 14-15.)
In 2014, PK Studios discovered that the Work was being used
by RLR and Golden Ocala for the development of a property known as
Eagles Landing.
(Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.)
Many of the Eagles Landing
homes are exact duplicates of the Work.
discovery,
Plaintiff
applied,
and
2
(Id.)
received,
After making this
a
Certificate
of
Copyright Registration for the Work.
(Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.)
When PK
Studios notified RLR and Golden Ocala that they were impermissibly
using the Work, RLR responded that it had licensed the Work from
Stock Development for use on Eagles Landing.
(Id. at ¶ 24.)
According to PK Studios, Stock Development had no right to grant
such a license.
(Id.)
Based on these allegations, PK Studios brings causes of action
against Defendants for copyright infringement, breach of contract,
and for a declaratory judgment that the Release does not grant
Stock Development the right to license the Work.
RLR, Eagles
Landing, and Golden Ocala now move to dismiss the cause of action
for copyright infringement, arguing that it is insufficiently pled
because PK Studios has not adequately identified the Work.
In the
alternative, Defendants seek an order compelling PK Studios to
provide a more definite statement of its copyright infringement
allegations.
II.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted).
To survive dismissal, the factual allegations
3
must be “plausible” and “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.”
Id. at 555.
See also Edwards v.
Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010).
“more
than
accusation.”
an
unadorned,
Ashcroft
v.
This requires
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
Iqbal,
556
U.S.
662,
678
(2009)
(citations omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take
them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth,” Mamani v.
Berzaín, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
“Threadbare
recitals
of
the
elements
of
a
cause
of
action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
with
a
“Factual allegations that are merely consistent
defendant’s
plausible.”
liability
fall
short
of
being
facially
Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus,
the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When there are wellpleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity
and
then
determine
whether
entitlement to relief.”
they
plausibly
give
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
4
rise
to
an
III.
“Two
elements
must
be
proven
to
establish
copyright
infringement: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying
of constituent elements of the work that are original.”
v. Dean, 611 F. App'x 671, 672 (11th Cir. 2015).
Singleton
To satisfy the
first element, “a plaintiff must prove that the work is original
and
that
the
plaintiff
complied
with
applicable
statutory
formalities” for registering the copyright.
Bateman v. Mnemonics,
Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1541 (11th Cir. 1996).
To satisfy the second
element, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant had access to
the copyrighted work and that the two works are so ‘substantially
similar’ that an average lay observer would recognize the alleged
copy
as
having
been
appropriated
from
the
original
work.”
Singleton, 611 F. App’x at 672 (quoting Calhoun v. Lillenas
Publ'g, 298 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Here, PK Studios alleges that it owns a valid copyright to
the Work and attaches a copy of the copyright registration to the
Complaint. (Doc. #1-4.) These allegations, taken as true, satisfy
the first element.
Concerning the second element, PK Studios
alleges that the Work contained architectural designs it created
pursuant to the contract with Stock Development, that RLR and
Golden Ocala obtained those designs from Stock Development, and
that RLR and Golden Ocala used the designs to build homes that are
“exact duplicates” of the designs PK Studios created for Stock
5
Development.
allegations
(Doc. #1, ¶¶ 12-19.)
are
insufficient
to
Defendants argue that these
state
a
claim
for
copyright
infringement because PK Studios has not adequately identified the
copyrighted material at issue and has not provided sufficient
detail to support the allegation that Defendants copied the Work.
The Court disagrees.
PK Studios has identified the copyrighted
material as the architectural designs RLR and Golden Ocala obtained
from Stock Development and subsequently used to build homes in
Eagles Landing.
(Id.)
PK Studios further alleges that the Eagles
Landing homes built by RLR and Golden Ocala are “exact duplicates”
of the designs contained in the Work as evidenced by the fact that
a
contractor
incorrectly
concluded
that
architect of the Eagles Landing project.
PK
Studios
(Id.)
was
the
Taken as true,
these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for copyright
infringement.
works
“are
See Calhoun, 298 F.3d at 1232 (evidence that two
practically
identical”
is
sufficient
to
create
a
presumption of copying).
While the Court agrees with Defendants that PK Studios cannot
ultimately prevail on this count without providing the specific
materials alleged to have been copied so that they can be compared
to the Eagles Landing designs, PK Studios was under no obligation
to do so at the pleading stage, In re Southeast Banking Corp., 69
F.3d 1539, 1551 (11th Cir. 1995) (Rule 8 does not “impose upon
plaintiffs the burden to plead with the greatest specificity they
6
can”), and Defendants will be able to obtain this information
during discovery. Accordingly, the Court concludes that PK Studios
has
adequately
alleged
its
cause
of
action
for
copyright
infringement and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied.
Likewise, the Court concludes that the Complaint is not “so vague
or
ambiguous
response.”
that
[Defendants]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
cannot
reasonably
prepare
a
Therefore, Defendants’ motion
for a more definite statement also will be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for a More
Definite Statement (Doc. #30) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
January, 2016.
Copies: Counsel of record
7
4th
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?