Ponderosa Twins Plus One v. iHeartMedia, Inc.

Background

The opinion describes Spicer’s complaint as arising from defendants’ use of a sound recording in their internet radio services. The complaint asserted state-law claims for copyright infringement under common law and California Civil Code section 980, as well as unfair competition, misappropriation, unfair business practices, and conversion.

Copyright Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims with leave to amend. Regarding the copyright claims, the court stated that the complaint appeared to allege infringement of a public-performance copyright that never existed, or of reproduction and distribution copyrights that had been lost long ago. The court reasoned that, whatever common-law copyright existed in the 1960s, there was no indication that it included a right to prevent others from publicly playing a sound recording. It also stated that the copyrights that existed under California law appeared to have been lost when Spicer published the recordings.

The court further stated that California Civil Code section 980(a)(2) could not independently support the claims because a 1982 amendment did not expand copyright protection for sound recordings, and the amendment’s legislative materials recognized that works published before 1978 lost state-law copyright protection. The court noted that two other decisions appeared to take contrary positions but stated that those decisions were incorrectly decided to the extent they supported those positions.

Possible Reproduction and Distribution Claims

The court stated that California law may support non-copyright claims based on reproducing and distributing Spicer’s sound recording. However, the complaint focused almost entirely on public performance and only began to describe conduct that might amount to reproduction and distribution. The court granted leave to allege facts supporting those assertions and directed that the amended complaint identify which defendants, if not all of them, were alleged to have engaged in that conduct.

Other Motions and Case Schedule

Some defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which is a motion to strike claims that allegedly arise from protected speech or petitioning activity. The court denied that motion without prejudice and stated that it could be brought again in response to the amended complaint.

The court denied Spicer’s motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. section 1404. It found that the current forum was convenient for the parties and witnesses and that transfer would not serve the interests of justice. The court also noted that Spicer had previously taken the position that the case should be transferred from the Southern District of California to the current district.

The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 21 days of the order and that defendants respond within 21 days after it was filed. Judge Vince Chhabria also set page limits for any combined motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion, the opposition, and the reply.