Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2021

S.A. Music, LLC v. Google, LLC

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:20-cv-00488
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In S.A. Music v. Google, Judge Chhabria denied Google's motion to dismiss because the complaints alleged the songs were sold, making the legal issue hypothetical.

Who this affects

The ruling affected S.A. Music, LLC, Ray Henderson Music Co., Inc., Four Jays Music Company, the other plaintiffs, and Google, LLC and the other defendants. It left Google's motion to dismiss denied without deciding the underlying distribution-right question.

What happened

S.A. Music, LLC and other plaintiffs sued Google, LLC and other defendants under the Copyright Act. The complaints alleged that Google made available, reproduced, and sold all of the listed songs.

Google asked the court to dismiss the claims concerning songs that Google may have made available but did not ultimately sell. The court said that issue was hypothetical at this stage because, under both sides' understanding, selling a song would itself violate the plaintiffs' distribution right.

Judge Chhabria denied Google's motion to dismiss. The court said the issue could become appropriate for decision at summary judgment if evidence showed that some songs were never sold, but deciding it now could produce an advisory opinion with no effect on the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
S.A. Music, LLC v. Google, LLC · No. 3:20-cv-00488
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Feb. 12, 2021

Background

S.A. Music, LLC, Ray Henderson Music Co., Inc., Four Jays Music Company, and other plaintiffs brought related cases against Google, LLC and other defendants. The complaints asserted claims under the Copyright Act. The opinion states that the complaints alleged Google made available, reproduced, and actually sold all of the listed songs.

Motion and analysis

Google moved to dismiss. The motion raised the question whether Google violated the plaintiffs' distribution right for songs that Google made available but did not ultimately sell. The court explained that, taking the complaints' allegations as true, that question was hypothetical because the parties agreed that the distribution right was violated once a song was sold. Deciding the question at the motion-to-dismiss stage could therefore result in an advisory opinion—an opinion on an issue that might not affect the eventual outcome.

The court rejected Google's reliance on a different decision that resolved the same legal question at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court stated that, even if the allegations in that case were the same, it disagreed with deciding the issue at that point in the litigation. The court noted that the issue could become appropriate for decision at summary judgment if evidence showed that some songs were never sold.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria denied Google's motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide whether Google violated the plaintiffs' distribution rights for songs that were made available but never sold; it held that deciding that issue at this stage would be premature.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.