Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES SAINT-AMOUR and ALENA IVLEVA a/k/a JERRA BLUES, doing business as SATORII, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE RICHMOND ORGANIZATION, INC. (TRO INC.) and LUDLOW MUSIC, INC., Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-04464-DAB

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT R

OBINS

K

APLAN

LLP

Paul V. LiCalsi, Esq. Ofer Reger, Esq. 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, New York 10022-4611 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 PLiCalsi@RobinsKaplan.com OReger@RobinsKaplan.com

Attorneys for Defendants The Richmond Organization, Inc. and Ludlow Music, Inc.

Case 1:16-cv-04464-DAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 33

i

Table of Contents Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5

I.

Standards on a Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Plausible Claim for Relief. ..................................................................................................................... 5

II.

This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Declaratory Judgment Act Claims Because Plaintiffs Have No Standing to Sue for the Requested Relief. ......................................................................................................... 6

III.

Even if Plaintiffs’ Copyright Claims are Sustained, Plaintiffs’ Remaining State Law Claims are Preempted by the Copyright Act. ........................................... 14

A.

Plaintiffs’ claim for deceptive acts and practices under GBL § 349 is preempted by the Copyright Act. ..................................................................... 15

B.

Even if not preempted, the Complaint fails to state a GBL § 349 claim. ........ 17

C.

Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract is preempted by the Copyright Act. ................................................................................................................... 19

D.

The claim for money had and received is a quasi-contract claim that is preempted by the Copyright Act; In any event, this claim should be dismissed as duplicative. .................................................................................. 22

E.

Plaintiffs’ claim for rescission should be preempted; Alternatively, the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for rescission. ................................. 22

IV.

Plaintiffs Can Recover No Damages Prior to the Three-Year Statute of Limitations Contained in the Copyright Act. ............................................................ 24

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25


ii

Table of Authorities Page(s) Cases

Adirondack Cookie Co. v. Monaco Baking Co., 871 F. Supp. 2d 86 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) .......................................................................................11 Allen v. Scholastic, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ........................................................................................5 Alper v. Seavey, 9 A.D.3d 263 (1st Dep’t 2004) ................................................................................................23 Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009) .....................................................................................................................7 Am. Movie Classics Co. v. Turner Entm’t Co., 922 F. Supp. 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)...............................................................................17, 20, 22 Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .............................................................................10, 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................5, 6 Atrium Group de Ediciones y Publicaciones, S.L. v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................16 Authors Guild, Inc. v. Hathitrust, 902 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) rev’d, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) ...............................12 Babylon Assocs. v. County of Suffolk, 101 A.D.2d 207 (2d Dep’t 1984) .............................................................................................23 BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ......................................................................................17 Barclay’s Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011)...............................................................................................14, 15 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................5, 6 Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004)...................................................................................15, 16, 20, 22
