Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cariaso
3:12-cv-02706
N.D. Cal.Dec 18, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions is the exclusive nationwide licensor of closed-circuit and pay-per-view UFC programming, including the claimed Program.
- Defendants Christopher Cariaso (individually and by d/b/a Fight and Fitness) and Fight and Fitness, Inc. operate Fight and Fitness at 123 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants unlawfully intercepted and broadcast the Program on May 28, 2011.
- Claims arise under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 for receiving, intercepting, or assisting in interception of licensed programming; the complaint does not specify the interception method.
- Defendant argues no standing because the Program was streamed via the Internet using a Roku device during a private after-hours gathering; the case is at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage and discovery is needed to determine the method of interception.
- Hearing on motions was vacated; the court resolved the motions without oral argument and permitted discovery; a later motion for summary judgment may address method of interception.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605. | Hand Promotions alleges unlawful interception of licensed programming. | Cariaso contends no standing since transmission was via Internet/streaming. | Denied. |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is warranted given unresolved interception method. | Allegations are plausible; discovery will reveal method. | Interception method not alleged; lacks standing. | Denied. |
| Whether the Solomon declaration should be struck. | (Plaintiff moved to strike the declaration.) | (Not explicitly stated in the excerpt.) | Denied (Court sustains objections and denies motion to strike). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility standard for complaint allegations)
- Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may assume truth of allegations and draw reasonable inferences)