Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
  No. 06-01093 JSL (JCx)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities inSupport of Defendants' Motion to Dismissfor Failure to State a Claim [Rule 12(b)(6)]
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Ira P. Rothken (SBN #160029)ROTHKEN LAW FIRM3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 224 Novato, CA 94949Telephone: (415) 924-4250Facsimile: (415) 924-2905Attorney for DefendantsJustin Bunnell, Forrest Parker, WesParker and Valence Media, Ltd.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACOLUMBIA PICTURES, et. al.,Plaintiffs,vs.JUSTIN BUNNELL, et. al.,Defendants.Case No. 06-01093 JSL (JCx)DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM[Rule 12(b)(6)]Date: May 8, 2006Time: 1:00 p.mPlace: Ctrm 4
 
  No. 06-01093 JSL (JCx)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities inSupport of Defendants' Motion to Dismissfor Failure to State a Claim [Rule 12(b)(6)]
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
 
Introduction and Statement of Facts
...................................................................1a. Framework Allegations..........................................................................................1 b. Alleged Acts of Infringement...............................................................................2c. Defendants' Alleged Activities.............................................................................4
2.
 
Legal Argument
.....................................................................................................7a. Legal Standard........................................................................................................7 b. Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed.........................................................71. Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because of the absence of anyallegation of actual primary infringement...............................................................92. Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because of insufficientallegations of secondary responsibility..................................................................103. Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because of lack of causation anddamages..................................................................................................................13
3.
 
Conclusion
.............................................................................................................14
 
  No. 06-01093 JSL (JCx)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities inSupport of Defendants' Motion to Dismissfor Failure to State a Claim [Rule 12(b)(6)]
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
 
 A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc
., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013, n. 2. (2001).....................9
 Dura Pharmaceuticals v.
, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 1634
 
(2005)........................7
 Ellison v. Robertson
, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9
th
Cir. 2004)...........................................11
 Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
, 392 U.S. 390, 396-397; 88 S.Ct. 2084; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1176 (1968)..........................................................................10
 Lee v. City of Los Angeles
, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9
th
Cir. 2001).......................................7
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co.
, 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir.1998)............................................................................................................................9
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft 
, 436 U.S. 1, 8; 98 S. Ct. 1554; 56 L.Ed. 2d 30 (1978)........................................................................................................14
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster 
, __ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2764,2776, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (hereinafter "Grokster").......................................8, 11
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd 
., 380 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9
th
Cir. 2004)..................10
 National Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc.,
991 F.2d 426, 434 (8thCir. 1993).....................................................................................................................9
 Newborn v. Yahoo!, Inc.
, 391 F.Supp.2d 181, 186 (D.C. D.C. 2005)............................9
 Parker v. Google, Inc.
, 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 9860 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2006).....12
 Perfect10 v. Google, Inc.
, 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6664 (C.D. Cal., filed February17, 2006)....................................................................................................................11
 Polar Bear Prods. v. Timex Corp
., 384 F.3d 700, 708 (9
th
Cir. 2004).....................9, 13
 Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.
,907 F.Supp. 1361, 1372 (N. D. Cal. 1995)...............................................................10
Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA
, 948 F. supp. 923, 932 (N. D. Cal. 1996)...............9
Shapiro, Bernstein
 
& Co.
, 316 F.2d 304, 308 (2
nd
Cir. 1963)......................................13
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
, 464 U.S. 417, 78 L. Ed. 2d574, 104 S. Ct. 774 (1984)..........................................................................................8
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more