High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
DUANEMORRIS
LLP
GregoryP. GuliaJohn Dellaportas1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036(212) 692-1000-and-Edward M. Cramp (
pro hac vice
)Michelle Hon (
pro hac vice
)101 West Broadway, Suite 900San Diego, CA 92101(619) 744-2200
Attorneys for MP3tunes, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; CAROLINERECORDS, INC.; EMI CHRISTIAN MUSICGROUP INC.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC;VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.;BEECHWOOD MUSIC CORP.; COLGEMS-EMIMUSIC INC; EMI APRIL MUSIC INC.; EMIBLACKWOOD MUSIC; EMI FULL KEELMUSIC; EMI GOLDEN TORCH MUSIC CORP.;EMI LONGITUDE MUSIC; EMI VIRGIN MUSIC,INC.; EMI VIRGIN SONGS, INC.,Plaintiffs,v.MP3TUNES, LLC.,Defendant. __________________________________________ MP3TUNES, INC.,Counterclaimant,v.CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.;
et al.
))))))))))))))))))))))CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-Civ. 9931 (WHP)ECF CaseCounter-Defendants.)))
MP3TUNES’ MEMORANDUMOF LAW IN OPPOSITION TOEMI’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATIONOF THE DENIAL OF ITSMOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP Document 64 Filed 12/30/2008 Page 1 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.................................................................................................1MP3TUNES’ ALLEGATIONS..................................................................................................3A.MP3tunes............................................................................................................3B.EMI’s Extensive Internet Promotion....................................................................4C.EMI’s Fraudulent Take-Down Notices................................................................7LEGAL ARGUMENT...............................................................................................................8I.Governing Standard.............................................................................................8II.MP3tunes Has Stated A Claim For Relief Under 15 U.S.C. 512(f).......................9A.DigitalMillennium Copyright Act...........................................................9B.Section 512(f)........................................................................................11C.The California Court’s Decision.............................................................14III.MP3tunes Has Stated Proper Claims Under New York And California Unfair Competition Laws.........................................15A.New York General Business Law § 349.................................................15B.New York Common Law Unfair Competition........................................16C.California Business and Professions Code § 17200................................18D.There Is No Preemption.........................................................................19IV.DeclaratoryRelief Is Appropriate......................................................................22V.MP3tunes Should Be Granted Leave To Re-Plead If Necessary.........................23VI.A Partial Discovery Stay Would Not Be Proper.................................................24CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................25
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP Document 64 Filed 12/30/2008 Page 2 of 32
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers v. Pataki
,1997 WL 438849 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1997)........................................................................21
Bank of the West v. Superior Court,
2 Cal.4th 1254 (1992).........................................................................................................18
Bernheim v. Litt
,79 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................9
Block v. First Blood Associates
,988 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1993)................................................................................................23
BroadviewChemical Corp. v. Loctite Corp
.,417 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1970)................................................................................................22
Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l
,508 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1993)......................................................................................................23
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999)........................................................................................................19
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.,
486 U.S. 800 (1988)............................................................................................................14
Cohen v. Citibank, N.A.
, No. 95 Civ. 4826, 1997 WL 88378.....................................................................................24
Covington v. Kid
,1999 WL 9835 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 1999)..............................................................................24
Ellison v. Robertson
,357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).............................................................................................10
Foman v. Davis
,371 U.S. 178 (1962)............................................................................................................23
Hendrickson v. eBay Inc.,
165 F. Supp.2d 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2001)................................................................................10
Hillsborough County Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs. Inc.
,471 U.S. 707 (1985)............................................................................................................20
Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc.
,59 Cal.App.4th 965 (1997)..................................................................................................18
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP Document 64 Filed 12/30/2008 Page 3 of 32
Add a Comment