1
D
EFENDANTS
K
ANYE
W
EST AND
G
ETTING
O
UT
O
UR
D
REAMS
,
I
NC
.’
S
A
NSWER TO
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
C
OMPLAINT
,
A
FFIRMATIVE
D
EFENSES
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Eleanor M. Lackman, Esq., No. 298594
elackman@cdas.com
COWAN, D
E
BAETS, ABRAHAMS, & SHEPPARD LLP 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 492-4392 Telefax: (310) 492-4394 Attorneys for Defendants Kanye West and Getting Out Our Dreams, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD OSLIN BOBB-SEMPLE, Plaintiff, vs. KANYE WEST, SCOTT RAMON SEGURO MESCUDI p/k/a KID CUDI (COLLECTIVELY p/k/a KIDS SEE GHOSTS), TYRONE WILLIAM GRIFFIN JR. p/k/a TY DOLLA $IGN, ANDREW CLARKE p/k/a ANDY C., JEFF BHASKER, MICHAEL GEORGE DEAN p/k/a MIKE DEAN, ANDREW DAWSON, BRYAN MIGAL ATTMORE p/k/a BOOGZDABEAST, GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS, INC., DEF JAM RECORDINGS, INC., AND UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., Defendants.Case No.: 2:19-cv-1682 (FMO) (GJS)
DEFENDANTS KANYE WEST AND GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS, INC.’s ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Case 2:19-cv-01682-FMO-GJS Document 45 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:181
2
D
EFENDANTS
K
ANYE
W
EST AND
G
ETTING
O
UT
O
UR
D
REAMS
,
I
NC
.’
S
A
NSWER TO
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
C
OMPLAINT
,
A
FFIRMATIVE
D
EFENSES
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Pursuant to Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Kanye West and Getting Out Our Dreams, Inc. (collectively, “GOOD Defendants”), by their undersigned attorneys Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, for its Answer to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Ronald Oslin Bobb-Semple (“Bobb-Semple”), states as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
1
1.
GOOD Defendants admit that this is an action under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, but deny that Bobb-Semple is entitled to prevail and/or recover any relief whatsoever on such claims, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2.
GOOD Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 3.
GOOD Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the allegations of this Paragraph, except admit producing the sound recording called “Freeee (Ghost Town Pt. 2)” (hereinafter “Freeee”).
1
The inclusion of headings contained in the Complaint is solely for purposes of reference and should not be read as an admission as to any point raised therein.
Case 2:19-cv-01682-FMO-GJS Document 45 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:182
3
D
EFENDANTS
K
ANYE
W
EST AND
G
ETTING
O
UT
O
UR
D
REAMS
,
I
NC
.’
S
A
NSWER TO
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
C
OMPLAINT
,
A
FFIRMATIVE
D
EFENSES
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4.
GOOD Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the allegations of this Paragraph, except admit that GOOD Defendants did not obtain any permission to use any purported performance of Bobb-Semple, nor provide him with any compensation, and state that GOOD Defendants were not required to obtain any such permission, nor provide any such compensation. 5.
GOOD Defendants state that no response is required to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint insofar as it merely restates Bobb-Semple’s motivations for bringing the action. To the extent any such response is required, GOOD Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
GOOD Defendants state that the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law as to which no responsive pleading is necessary, but that to the extent any response is required, admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101
et seq
. 7.
GOOD Defendants state that the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law as to which no responsive pleading is necessary, but that to the extent any response is required, admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal copyright claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
Case 2:19-cv-01682-FMO-GJS Document 45 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:183