• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
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
 
ny-873973
CHARLES S. BARQUIST (CA SBN 133785)
 
CBarquist@mofo.com
 
MORRISON
 
&
FOERSTER LLP
 
555 West Fifth Street
 
Los Angeles, California 90013
-
1024
 
Telephone: 213.892.5200
 
Facsimile: 213.892.5454
 
JACQUELINE C. CHARLESWORTH (
 pro hac vice
)
 
JCharlesworth@mofo.com
K
ELVIN D. CHEN (
 pro hac vice
)
 
KChen@mofo.com
 
MORRISON
 
&
FOERSTER LLP
 
1290 Avenue of the Americas
 
New York, New York 10104
 
Telephone: 212.468.8000
 
Facsimile: 212.468.7900
 
PAUL GOLDSTEIN (CA SBN 79613)
 
PGoldstein@mofo.com
 
559 Nathan Abbott Way
 
Stanford, California 94305
-
8610
 
Telephone: 650.723.0313
 
Facsimile: 650.327.0811
 
Attorneys for PlaintiffsDON HENLEY AND MIKE CAMPBELL
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
 
DON HENLEY and MIKECAMPBELL,
 
Plaintiffs,
 
v.
 
CHARLES S. DEVORE
a
nd JUSTIN HART,
 
Defendants.
 
Case
No.
SACV09
-
0481 JVS (RNBx)
 
Hon. James V. Selna
 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
 
AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS
 
Date:
June
 
29, 2009
 
Time: 1:30 p.m.
 Courtroom:
10C
 
Case 8:09-cv-00481-JVS-RNB Document 17 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 31
 
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
 
ny-873973
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 
INTRODUCTION
..................................................................................................
1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
................................................................................
2
ARGUMENT
..........................................................................................................
5
I.
 
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
.......................................................
5
II.
 
HENLEY’S LANHAM ACT CLAIM IS AMPLYSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND THE LAW
....................................
6
A.
 
 Dastar 
Does Not Eliminate “False Endorsement”Claims Under the Lanham Act
.........................................................
8
B.
H
enley Has More Than Adequately Alleged FalseEndorsement
...................................................................................
10
 
C.
 
False Endorsement Applies to “Noncommercial”and “Political” Speech
....................................................................
16
 
III.
 
HENLEY’S UCL CLAIM IS SOUND
....................................................
19
 
A.
 
Henley
H
as Standing Under the UCL as Amendedby Proposition 64
...........................................................................
20
 
B.
 
Henley’s UCL Claim is Not Preempted byCopyright Law
................................................................................
24
 
IV.
 
CONCLUSION
.........................................................................................
25
 
Case 8:09-cv-00481-JVS-RNB Document 17 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 31
 
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
 
ny-873973
ii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 
Page(s)
 C
ASES
 
 Aagard v. Palomar Builders, Inc.
,
344 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (E.D. Cal. 2004)
........................................................
19
,
25
 
 ARC Ecology v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force
,
411 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2005)
..............................................................................
6
 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,
550 U.S. 544 (2007)
..............................................................................................
6
 Bosley Med 
.
Inst. v. Kremer 
,
403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)
........................................................................
17
-18
 Browne v. McCain
,
No. CV 08
-
05334
-
RGK (Ex), 2009 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 18876 (
C.
D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2009)
........................................
7-
8, 10, 1
2,
18
 
 Buckland v. Threshold Enters., Ltd.,
 
155 Cal. App. 4th 798, 66 Cal Rptr. 3d 543 (2007)
...........................................
23
 
 Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC 
,
486 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
........................................................
20,
23
 
 Butler v. Target Corp.
,
323 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
..................................................
10
-13,
2
4
C 
ampbell v. Acuff 
-
 Rose Music, Inc.
,
510 U.S. 569 (1994)
..............................................................................................
2
Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc.
,
No. RG04
-
183113, 2006 WL 3542514 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 12, 2006)
............
23
 
Compco Corp. v. Day
-
 Brite Lighting, Inc.
,
376 U.S. 234 (1964)
.....................................................................................
1
4; n.3
 
Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc.
,
433 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (C.D. Cal. 2006)
..............................................................
19
 
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Pdts. Co.
,23
Cal. 4th 163
,
96 Cal. Rptr. 518 (2000)
....................................................
22
n.5
 
Case 8:09-cv-00481-JVS-RNB Document 17 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 3 of 31
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...