2:23-cv-07888
C.D. Cal.May 31, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Formal Entertainment alleges Defendants, including Zayn Malik and Sony Music, infringed its copyrighted song “Somebody Tonight” with the song “Better.”
- The First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the FAC, challenging sufficiency of pleading on infringement and damages requests.
- Plaintiff’s access argument is based on a chain of events through an intermediary, not widespread dissemination.
- The court is ruling at the pleading stage (motion to dismiss), considering sufficiency of allegations without full presentation of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access | Intermediary linked works | No widespread dissemination; intermediary theory insufficient | FAC sufficiently pleads access via intermediary |
| Similarity and Unlawful Appropriation | Substantial similarity is well-pled | Not enough for striking/substantial similarity | FAC alleges similarities probative of copying; does not decide substantial similarity at this stage |
| Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Liability | Can plead alternative theories | Defendants cannot be both direct and indirect infringers | Alternative pleading allowed at this stage |
| Fair Notice of Individual Liability | Lack of detail justified at pleading stage | Each defendant not on notice of specific actions | FAC gives sufficient notice under Rule 8 |
| Damages and Requests for Declaratory Relief | Damages pled as per Copyright Act and claims align with relief | Requests for compensatory/special damages and declaratory relief are duplicative/redundant | Strikes prayer for declaratory relief and redundant damages; other claims remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (sets plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (explains pleading standards under Rule 8)
- Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018) (copyright infringement requires ownership and copying of protected elements)
- Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (circumstantial proof of copying in copyright law)
- Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2016) (access through chain of events between works)
- Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) (musical compositions may involve a broad range of protectable elements)
- Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement)
- Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) (criteria for secondary copyright liability)