Doc's Dream, LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc.
678 F. App'x 541
9th Cir.2017Background
- Doc’s Dream, LLC (Appellant) brought a declaratory judgment action alleging copyright abandonment related to audio/video recordings created by Dr. Eugene Scott to promote his ministry.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to meet Rule 8(a) pleading standards, concluding the complaint did not plausibly state a claim.
- The complaint omitted any allegation that Dr. Scott actually owned copyright in the works, a fact the Ninth Circuit noted is prerequisite to an abandonment claim.
- The district court dismissed without granting Appellant leave to amend and relied on a ground not briefed or argued by the parties.
- The Ninth Circuit agreed the Rule 8 dismissal was correct on the pleading defect but held the district court abused its discretion by refusing leave to amend without justification.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to allow Appellant to amend its complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded a copyright-abandonment claim under Rule 8 | Doc’s Dream argued complaint stated abandonment claim | Defendants relied on Rule 8 defects (insufficiency) | Court: Complaint insufficient because it did not allege Dr. Scott owned the copyrights (ownership is prerequisite) |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper | Doc’s Dream argued it should be allowed to amend to allege ownership | Defendants supported dismissal; district court denied leave without explanation | Court: Denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion; remand with instruction to permit amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960) (copyright ownership is prerequisite to abandonment claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading standard articulated)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant leave to amend absent futility)
- Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal without leave improper unless complaint cannot be saved)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (outright refusal to grant leave without justification is abuse of discretion)
- Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court erred by sua sponte dismissing on unbriefed grounds)