Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:93
`
`
`Staci Jennifer Riordan, SBN 232659
`Neal J. Gauger, SBN 293161
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`555 W. Fifth Street, 46th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
`Telephone: 213.629.6000
`Facsimile: 213.629.6001
`sriordan@nixonpeabody.com
`ngauger@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`MINX INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a
`DAMASK FABRICS, a California
`Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC., a
`New York corporation, and DOES 1-10,
`inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.: 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA
`
`Hon. Christina A. Snyder
`
`DEFENDANT CLUB HOUSE
`CREATIONS, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`[Filed Concurrently with Request for
`Judicial Notice; Declaration of Staci
`Jennifer Riordan; and [Proposed] Order]
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Ctrm.:
`
`Complaint Filed: July 24, 2015
`FAC Filed: Sept. 4, 2015
`Discovery Cutoff:
`None
`Trial Date:
`
`
`None
`
`March 7, 2016
`10:00 a.m.
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:94
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 2
`
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON A MOTION TO DISMISS .......................... 3
`
`IV. THE COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE IN CONNECTION
`WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS ................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`THE FAC FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR COPYRIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT AND MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ....... 4
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Must Plead Ownership of a Valid Copyright, And It Has
`Failed To Do So ........................................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Must Plead Access, And It Has Failed To Do So ....................... 5
`
`1. Plaintiff Has Not Pled Facts Demonstrating Direct Access ................ 6
`
`2. Plaintiff Has Not Pled Access By A “Chain of Events” ...................... 6
`
`3. Plaintiff Has Not Pled Access By “Widespread Dissemination” ........ 7
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Must Plead Substantial Similarity, And It Has Failed ................ 8
`
`VI. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE SHAPE PATTERN AND THE
`GARMENT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`The Unprotected Elements Of The Shape Pattern Must Be Filtered
`Out Before It Is Compared With The Garment ....................................... 10
`
`1. The Shape Pattern Is Substantially Similar To Shapes, Icons,
`Patterns, and Designs Found In The Public Domain ......................... 10
`
`2. The Shape Pattern Is Not Sufficiently Original And Therefore Is
`Not Copyrightable .............................................................................. 11
`
`a. The Use of Triangles, Diamonds, Meander Borders, Crosses,
`Pyramids, and Rectangles are Unoriginal and Scenes á Faire
`in the Context of Fabric Patterns .................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`To The Extent Plaintiff Has A Copyright In The Shape Pattern, It Is
`A “Thin Copyright” As A Matter Of Law .............................................. 15
`
`Even If This Court Determines That Plaintiff Has A “Thin
`Copyright,” The Shape Pattern And The Garment Are Not Virtually
`Identical ................................................................................................... 16
`
`VII. THE FAC FAILS TO STATE CLAIMS FOR EITHER
`CONTRIBUTORY OR VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`AND MUST BE DISMISSED ...................................................................... 17
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:95
`
`Table of Contents (continued)
`
`Page
`
`1. The FAC Improperly Pleads Contributory Copyright
`Infringlement and Vicarious Copyright Infringement as a Single
`Claim .................................................................................................. 17
`
`2. The FAC Fails to State a Claim for Contributory Copyright
`Infringement ....................................................................................... 18
`
`3. The FAC Fails to State a Claim for Vicarious Copyright
`Infringment ......................................................................................... 19
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:96
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aliotti v. R. Daktin & Co.,
`831 F. 2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987) ...........................................................................................10
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`82 F. Supp. 616, 625 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..........................................................................18
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`35 F. 3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................8, 15
`
`Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 581 F. 3d 1138
`(9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U. S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ............................... passim
`
`Berkic v. Crichton,
`761 F. 3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985) ..........................................................................................4
`
`Bill Diodato Photography, LLC v. Kate Spade, LLC,
`388 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D. N.Y. 2005) ..........................................................................13
`
`Bissoon-Dath v. Sony Comp. Entm’t America Inc.,
`694 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N. D. Cal. 2010) .........................................................................8
`
`Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.,
`36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 197 (S.D.N.Y 1999) ..................................................................9, 11
`
`Campbell v. The Walt Disney Co.,
`718 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N. D. Cal 2010) .........................................................................10
`
`Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.
`297 F. 3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................5, 10
`
`Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,
`18 F. 3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................3
`
`Domingo Cambeiro Prof’l Corp. v. Advent,
`211 F.3d 1273, 2000 WL 262597 (9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................9, 12
`
`28
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:97
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dumas v. Kipp,
`90 F. 3d 386 (9th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................4
`
`Ellison Educ. Equip., Inc. v. Tekservices, Inc.,
`903 F. Supp. 1350 (D. Neb. 1995) ..............................................................................9, 12
`
`Erickson v. Blake,
`839 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Or. 2012) ...............................................................................10
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirit, Inc.
`225 F. 3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................12, 16
`
`Express, LLC v. Fetish Group, Inc.,
`424 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (2006) ............................................................................................16
`
`Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,
`76 F. 3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................19, 20
`
`Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989) .........................................................................................19
`
`Frybarger v. International Business Machines Corp.
`812 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................13
`
`Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment, Inc.
`462 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................8, 9
`
`In re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation,
`89 F. 3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................4
`
`Iqbal v. Ashcroft,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Jackson v. Carey,
`353 F. 3d 750 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................4
`
`Jason v. Fonda,
`698 F. 2d 966 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................5, 7, 8
`
`Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television,
`16 F. 3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994) ...........................................................................................10
`
`L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.,
`676 F. 3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:98
`
`
`Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc.,
`736 F. 2d 485 (9th Cir. 1984) .....................................................................................12, 13
`
`Lopez v. Smith,
`203 F. 3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) ..........................................................................................4
`
`Lucky Break Wishbone Corp. v. Sears Roebuck and Co.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2007) ...................................................................15
`
`Marvullo v. Gruner & Jahr,
`105 F. Supp. 2d 225 (E.D. N.Y. 2000) ..........................................................................18
`
`Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................15
`
`Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
`528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................9, 12
`
`National Business Development Services, Inc. v. American Credit Education &
`Consulting, Inc., 299 Fed. App’x 509, 2008 WL 4772074 (6th Cir. 2008) ...........3
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`494 F. 3d 388 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................19
`
`Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Commc’ns,
`907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)...............................................................................18
`
`Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co.,
`
`330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Satava v. Lowry,
`323 F. 3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... passim
`
`See v. Durang,
`711 F. 2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983) ...........................................................................11, 13
`
`Sega Enters. Ltd. v. MAPHIA,
`948 F. Supp 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ..................................................................................18
`
`Shwarz v. U.S.,
`234 F. 3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) ...........................................................................................10
`
`Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`562 F. 2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) ........................................................................................11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:99
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Stern v. Sinatra,
`99 F. App’x 777 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................9, 11
`
`Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,
`212 F. 3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................6
`
`Todd v. Montana Silversmiths, Inc.,
`379 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Colo. 2005) .......................................................................9, 12
`
`Tompkins Graphics, Inc. v. Zipatone, Inc.,
`No. CIV. A. 82-5438, 1983 WL 398 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 1983) ..........................9, 11
`
`Zella v. The E.W. Scripps Co.,
`529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C. D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................3, 4, 10
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411 ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.1 ..................................................................................................................9, 11
`
`RULES
`
`Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..............................................................3
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .................................................3, 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`4 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 13.02[A] (2013) ..................................................................5, 6
`
`WOJCIK, MARY CAMPBELL. The Antithesis of Originality: Bridgeman, Image
`Licensors, and the Public Domain, 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 257
`(2008) .....................................................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:100
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`TO PLAINTIFF AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 7, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
`
`thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, located at 312 N.
`
`Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendant Club House Creations, Inc.
`
`(“Club House” or “Defendant”) will and does hereby move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing, with prejudice, in its
`
`favor the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Minx International, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Damask Fabrics (“Minx” or “Plaintiff”) in its entirety.
`
`This motion is made on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim for relief for copyright
`
`infringement (the “First Claim”) fails for multiple reasons:
`
`First, the Claim fails because Plaintiff has failed to plead ownership of a valid
`
`copyright for its alleged work.
`
`Second, the Claim fails because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that
`
`Defendant had access to Plaintiff’s works.
`
`Third, the Claim fails because Plaintiff has failed to plead substantial similarity
`
`between the works at issue.
`
`Fourth, the Claim fails because the Plaintiff’s work is not sufficiently original.
`
`Fifth, the Claim fails because the works at issue, as a matter of law, are not
`
`substantially similar in copyrightable expression.
`
`Plaintiff’s claim for contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement
`
`(“Second Claim”) fails on the grounds that: (1) the claims are improperly pled
`
`together; (2) Plaintiff has failed to properly allege a claim for contributory copyright
`
`infringement; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to properly allege a claim for vicarious
`
`copyright infringement.
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion; the attached Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities; Request for Judicial Notice; the accompanying Declaration of
`
`Staci Jennifer Riordan; [Proposed] Order; all of the pleadings and papers filed herein;
`
`1
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:15-CV-05645-CAS-PLA
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:101
`
`
`and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court
`
`prior to its ruling.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2016
`
`
`
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`
`By /s/ Staci Jennifer Riordan
`Staci Jennifer Riordan
`Neal J. Gauger
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`CLUB HOUSE CREATIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:15-CV-05645-CAS-PLA
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:102
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Minx International, Inc. d/b/a Damask Fabrics (“Minx” or “Plaintiff”)
`
`is suing Defendant Club House Creations, Inc. (“Club House” or “Defendant”) for
`
`selling a garment adorned with public domain icons, designs, and shapes first utilized
`
`and promulgated by Mayan, Inca, Aztec, and other civilizations of Mexico, Central
`
`America, and South America, and repeated throughout popular culture since then.
`
`Despite the public nature and rich history of these icons, designs, and shapes,
`
`Plaintiff now claims it has a monopoly over their use via its alleged ownership of a
`
`two-dimensional artwork titled “30327” (the “Shape Pattern”). Plaintiff, however, has
`
`failed to properly plead ownership of a copyright registration in an original,
`
`protectable image, including a failure to provide notice to this Court and Club House
`
`as to what deposit materials, if any, are associated with the “30327” copyright.
`
`Even if this defect is corrected, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
`
`still must fail, as no person or entity should ever be granted a monopoly in the
`
`depiction of public domain icons, designs, and shapes, including those depicted in the
`
`Shape Pattern. Federal statutes and courts have repeatedly rejected any and all
`
`attempts to claim copyright protection and ownership over such images.
`
`The FAC also fails for the following reasons, each of which is dispositive:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff failed to properly plead access;
`
`Plaintiff failed to allege that its work contains original elements;
`
`Plaintiff failed to plead substantial similarity; and
`
`the FAC fails as a matter of law as the works at issues are not
`
`substantially similar copyrightable expression.1
`
`
`1 Plaintiff also alleges contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement, a cause of
`action that does not exist. To the extent Plaintiff is trying to plead either
`contributory infringement or vicarious infringement, both claims are fatally flawed
`and must be dismissed.
`
`1
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`CASE NO. 2:15-CV-05645-CAS-PLA
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:103
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Accordingly, Club House now brings this Motion to Dismiss, requesting that
`
`the Court dismiss the sloppy, fatally flawed FAC, with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Club House is a wholesale-only clothing designer based in New York.2 The
`
`garment at issue, SKU 0079000123750 (the “Garment”), is allegedly sold at Rue 21
`
`retail stores. FAC ¶ 14, Exhibit C. Plaintiff is a California-based textile converter
`
`that “makes sales of products bearing designs.” Plaintiff alleges that it owns the
`
`Shape Pattern. FAC ¶ 10.
`
`After the filing of the FAC, Club House attempted to negotiate a reasonable
`
`first extension of time to respond to it. Plaintiff refused to issue any reasonable
`
`extension, despite being specifically compelled to do so by the Central District of
`
`California Civility and Professionalism Guidelines. Thus, on December 22, 2015,
`
`Club House filed an application with the Court in which it requested that it be given
`
`until January 19, 2016 to answer or otherwise respond to the FAC. Despite Plaintiff’s
`
`strenuous objections, Club House’s application was granted in full.
`
`Prior to the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff and Club House met and conferred
`
`pursuant to CDCA Local Rule 7-3 regarding the sufficiency and substance of
`
`Plaintiff’s pleading. Declaration of Staci Jennifer Riordan (“Riordan Decl.”), ¶ 2.
`
`Rather than amend its pleading once again, Plaintiff asserted that its FAC was proper.
`
`20
`
`This Motion followed. Id.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For reasons more fully discussed below, the FAC is fatally flawed. Plaintiff has
`
`failed to plead ownership of a valid copyright, failed to plead sufficient facts showing
`
`Club House accessed the Shape Pattern, and fails to allege that the Garment and the
`
`
`2 Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that Club House “owned and controlled offline and/or
`online retail stores.” FAC ¶ 15. This is not true. Club House, being a wholesale-
`only clothing designer, has never operated retail stores. Notably, Paragraph 15 of
`the FAC is identical to Paragraph 15 of the prior Complaint, with the exception that
`Paragraph 15 of the Complaint states these exact same allegations against Rue 21 – a
`clothing retailer. See Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 15.
`
`2
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-CV-07163-BRO-SH
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:104
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Shape Pattern are substantially similar copyrightable expression. The FAC also fails
`
`as a matter of law.
`
`Accordingly, Club House now brings this Motion to Dismiss, requesting the
`
`Court dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and/or in the alternative, dismiss the cause of
`
`action for copyright infringement and/or the cause of action for vicarious and/or
`
`contributory copyright infringement with prejudice.
`
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON A MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) exists to weed out undeserving complaints before parties engage
`
`in expensive discovery. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 555-559, 127
`
`S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (“Twombly”). This is particularly important in
`
`copyright infringement actions, which “lend[] [themselves] readily to abusive
`
`litigation, since the high cost of trying such a case can force a defendant who might
`
`otherwise be successful in trial to settle in order to avoid the time and expenditure of a
`
`resources intensive case.” National Business Development Services, Inc. v. American
`
`Credit Education & Consulting, Inc., 299 Fed. App’x 509, 2008 WL 4772074 *2 (6th
`
`Cir. 2008). Thus, while Rule 8(a) only requires a “short plain statement of the claim,”
`
`a complaint for copyright infringement has a heightened pleading standard that
`
`requires a plaintiff to give a defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the
`
`grounds upon which the claim rests. Twombly, 550 U. S. at 555; Iqbal v. Ashcroft,
`
`20
`
`556 U.S. 662, 667-68 (2009).
`
`On a motion to dismiss, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are
`
`taken as true, but a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions in the form of
`
`factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts
`
`alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F. 3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994); Zella
`
`v. The E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1127-28 (C. D. Cal. 2007).
`
`“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
`
`conclusory statements,” are not presumed to be true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-CV-07163-BRO-SH
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:105
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Thus, a court must not accept, as pled in the FAC, “naked assertion[s]” devoid of
`
`“further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557.
`
`When amendment of a complaint would be futile, dismissal should be ordered
`
`with prejudice. Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F. 3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996); Lopez v. Smith, 203
`
`F. 3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F. 3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003)
`
`(dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate if the deficiencies in the complaint
`
`cannot be cured by amendment).
`
`IV. THE COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE IN CONNECTION
`
`WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, a court can consider documents referenced in
`
`the complaint, even if not attached to the complaint. In re Stac Electronics Securities
`
`Litigation, 89 F. 3d 1399, 1405, n. 4 (9th Cir. 1996); Zella, 529 F. Supp. 2d at 1128.
`
`V. THE FAC FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR COPYRIGHT
`
`INFRINGEMENT AND MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
`
`To successfully plead a copyright infringement claim, the plaintiff must plead
`
`facts – not mere legal conclusions – establishing: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership of a
`
`valid copyright in its work; (2) the defendants’ access to the copyrighted work; and (3)
`
`substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing
`
`material. Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F. 3d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir. 1985).
`
`Here, the FAC fails to properly plead facts establishing ownership, access, or
`
`substantial similarity. Thus, the FAC fails and Club House’s Motion to Dismiss must
`
`22
`
`be granted with prejudice.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Must Plead Ownership of a Valid Copyright, And It Has
`
`Failed To Do So
`
`While copyright registration is not a precondition to copyright protection, it is a
`
`precondition to filing a copyright infringement action. 17 U.S.C. § 411; L.A. Printex
`
`Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F. 3d 841, 852 (9th Cir. 2012) (“L.A.
`
`28
`
`Printex”).
`
`4
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-CV-07163-BRO-SH
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:106
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`The FAC (1) alleges that Plaintiff “is the owner and author of a two-
`
`dimensional artwork under title ‘30327’”; (2) claims that Plaintiff has registered its
`
`design; and (3) attaches a picture of a fabric swatch that purports to be textile print
`
`“30327.” FAC ¶¶ 10, 11. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide the official registration
`
`deposit materials or otherwise demonstrate in any way that the unlabeled,
`
`unauthenticated image attached to the FAC bears any relevance to Plaintiff’s claimed
`
`copyright registration.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to provide the factual notice
`
`of registration required by Twombly and Iqbal.
`
`Plaintiff is required to plead ownership of a copyright over protectable material
`
`in order to provide notice of what exact rights it is claiming. As pled, Club House is
`
`left to speculate as to (1) what work is covered by Plaintiff’s purported copyright
`
`registration; (2) what materials, if any, Plaintiff provided to the U.S. Copyright Office;
`
`and (3) whether the claimed copyright even relates to the Shape Pattern.
`
`Club House is not required to guess as to what work is covered by Plaintiff’s
`
`claimed copyright, whether the claimed copyright over “30327” relates to the Shape
`
`Pattern, and what, exactly, Club House has allegedly infringed. Twombly, 550 U. S. at
`
`555. Thus, the FAC must be dismissed as it fails to offer “fair notice of a legally
`
`cognizable claim and the grounds upon which the claim rests.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Must Plead Access, And It Has Failed To Do So
`
`Pursuant to the pleading requirements under Twombly, a court may dismiss a
`
`claim where a plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the defendants had access to
`
`the plaintiff’s work. 550 U.S. at 555-559; Cavalier v. Random House, Inc. 297 F. 3d
`
`23
`
`815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A “bare possibility of access is not enough.” Jason v. Fonda, 698 F. 2d 966,
`
`967 (9th Cir. 1982); See 4 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 13.02[A] (2013) (“mere
`
`
`3 Generally, style records and deposit materials are labeled or otherwise marked to
`indicate their origin, owner, style number and/or title. No such markings appear on
`the blurry, distorted, and crooked image attached to Plaintiff’s FAC, which Plaintiff
`purports to be the official style record of its alleged work.
`
`5
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-CV-07163-BRO-SH
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:107
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`speculation or conjecture” is insufficient to establish access). Rather, to properly plead
`
`access, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to view
`
`plaintiff’s work. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F. 3d 477, 482 (9th Cir.
`
`2000) (“Three Boys”). This standard is met by either pleading direct access or by
`
`using circumstantial evidence of (1) a “chain of events” linking the plaintiff’s work
`
`and the defendant’s access, or (2) widespread dissemination of the plaintiff’s work.
`
`Id. at 482. The FAC fails to sufficiently plead such factual allegations, and must be
`
`dismissed on this ground alone.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Pled Facts Demonstrating Direct Access
`
`10
`
`Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that Club House directly accessed its work.
`
`11
`
`Thus, it cannot establish access in that manner.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Pled Access By A “Chain of Events”
`
`As for indirect access, Plaintiff fails to plead that there is a “chain of events that
`
`link the plaintiff’s work and the defendant’s access,” as no such chain exists. Art
`
`Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc. (“Art Attacks”), 581 F. 3d 1138, 1143
`
`(9th Cir. 2009). What the FAC does contain, however, is a laundry list of all
`
`conceivable ways Club House could have possibly accessed the Shape Pattern,
`
`including, inter alia, access to Plaintiff’s design library, access to Plaintiff’s strike-
`
`offs and samples, and by access through unnamed third party vendors. FAC ¶ 13.
`
`Such allegations are merely a speculative list of the potential ways someone
`
`could have accessed the Shape Pattern. The FAC contains no facts related to access,
`
`because Plaintiff has not pled and cannot plead facts showing a “chain of events”
`
`linking the Shape Pattern to access by Club House. A mere possibility that Club
`
`House saw the Shape Pattern – which it did not prior to this case – does not meet the
`
`plausibility standard set forth in Iqbal. See 556 U.S. at 677-78; 4 NIMMER ON
`
`26
`
`COPYRIGHT § 13.02[A] (2013).
`
`27
`
`//
`
`28
`
`//
`
`6
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-CV-07163-BRO-SH
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-05645-CAS-PLA Document 19 Filed 01/19/16 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:108
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Pled Access By “Widespread Dissemination”
`
`Plaintiff does not bother to plead that the Shape