p2pnet news | RIAA News:- The decision many lawyers had been expecting - that the RIAA’s “boilerplate” complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the Copyright Act - has finally come down, but from an unlikely source.

The legal community has been looking to a Manhattan case, Elektra v Barker, for guidance, a case in which amicus briefs had been submitted by various industry groups and the US Department of Justice, and Warner v Cassin, a similar motion in the same Court’s Westchester division.

The decision instead came from senior district court Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the US District Court for the Southern District of California.

Judge Brewster not only denied a default judgment (the defendant had not even appeared in the action) but also dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Echoing the words of Judge Karas at the oral argument in Barker, Judge Brewster held (pdf):

Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant.

However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate this allegation is anything more than speculation.

The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant.

The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.

Ray Beckerman - Recording Industry vs The People

Below is the decison in full >>>

Interscope Records v. Rodriguez

S.D.Cal.,2007.

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

United States District Court,S.D. California.

INTERSCOPE RECORDS, UMG Recording, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corporation,

Plaintiff v Yolana RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.

Civ. No. 06cv2485-B (NLS).

Aug. 17, 2007.

Jonathan Gavin Fetterly, Holme Roberts & Owen, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, VACATING CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT RUDI M. BREWSTER, United States Senior District Court Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

*1 Interscope Records, UMG Recordings, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move the Court for entry of default judgment against Yolanda Rodriguez (”Defendant”). Because the Court finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently plead a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court DENIES the motion, VACATES the Clerk’s entry of default and GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend and re-serve the complaint within thirty (30 days) of the date of this order

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant on November 14, 2007, alleging copyright infringement. According to the complaint, Defendant used and continued to use an online media distribution system to download Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings and distribute and/or make them available for distribution to the public. Defendant was served with the summons and complaint by personal service on December 14, 2006. Plaintiff did not file a responsive pleading and on April 13, 2007, the Clerk entered default. Notice of entry of default was served on Defendant by mail on April

18, 2007. Plaintiffs then filed the instant motion for entry of default judgment on July 19, 2007.

III. STANDARD OF LAW

It is within the district court’s discretion whether or not to enter default judgment. Albade v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). Seven factors are generally considered before entering default judgment: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy … favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir.1986).

IV. ANALYSIS

In considering Plaintiffs’ instant motion for default judgment, the Court has reviewed the complaint and the circumstances of the default according to the factors set forth in Eitel. The Court finds that entry of default judgment is not presently warranted because the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The recent Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, —U.S. —-, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), sets forth a “plausibility” standard which a complaint must meet to sufficiently state a claim. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-1965 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.

As such, Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for

distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.

*2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment and VACATES the Court Clerk’s entry of Default. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to amend the complaint and serve it on Defendant. Defendant shall then have twenty (20) days from the date of service to answer or otherwise file a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S.D.Cal.,2007.

Interscope Records v. Rodriguez Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2408484 (S.D.Cal.)

Definitely stay tuned.

.Slashdot it!

Also See:

Seattle Times - “Quad-core” chips faster, save energy, September 10, 2007

InternetNews - AMD’s ‘Barcelona’ Ready For Takeoff, September 10, 2007

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 5:34 am and is filed under RIAA News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 7111 times