U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283ChainRxn from its website after being notified of plaintiff’s copyright of Boomshine (Compl. ¶27). Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that he did not authorize defendant Facebook’s “copying,display or distribution” of infringing copies of his work (Compl. ¶ 29).On October 9, 2009, plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The action was transferred to the NorthernDistrict of California. Defendant Facebook then filed the instant motion to dismiss. The daybefore the hearing, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, possibly rendering defendantFacebook’s motion to dismiss moot. At the hearing, the Court allowed the parties to filesupplemental briefs in light of the first amended complaint. In addition to the supplementalbriefing, this order will treat defendant Facebook’s motion to dismiss as renewed to the firstamended complaint. All references to the “complaint” in this order are to the first amendedcomplaint.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claimsalleged in the complaint.
See Parks Sch. of Business v. Symington
, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th. Cir.1995). All material allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party.
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
, 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th. Cir.1996). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailedfactual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’selements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above thespeculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (citation omitted).Defendant Facebook asserts that plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim should bedismissed because he fails to state a claim for direct and/or indirect copyright infringement.Because plaintiff alleges only one claim for copyright infringement, without specifying whetherhe is pursuing a claim for direct or indirect copyright infringement, this order will address the
Case3:10-cv-00264-WHA Document43 Filed03/31/10 Page3 of 8