RIAA Complaint Dismissed in California in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Judge Says Complaint is just "boilerplate listing"

In a default judgment case in Southern California, Interscope v. Rodriguez, 2007 WL 2408484, a judge has dismissed the RIAA's "boilerplate" complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I.e., the decision is in agreement with the defendants' arguments in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin.

Ironically, the case cited by the Court as support for its view that a complaint must be more than just conclusory boilerplate, was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007), the very same case cited by the RIAA recently in UMG v. Lindor in support of the RIAA's motion to dismiss Ms. Lindor's 4th affirmative defense.

The RIAA have known about the Interscope decision since August 17, 2007, but never disclosed its existence to Judge Robinson or to Judge Karas, the presiding judges in Cassin and in Barker.

In Interscope v. Rodriguez, Judge Rudi M. Brewster held as follows:

The recent Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ---U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), sets forth a "plausibility" standard which a complaint must meet to sufficiently state a claim. "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-1965 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.

As such, Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.

Complaint*
August 17, 2007, Order and Decision Denying Default Judgment Application and Dismissing Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief* (Westlaw cite: 2007 WL 2408484)

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion on Interscope v. Rodriguez:

p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
Wired.com
TechDirt
ZDNet
Slashdot
The Inquirer
Tec Channel (German)
ValleyWag
Daily Tech
Caracalla Blogja (Hungarian)


Commentary and Discussion on Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Drug and Device Law

Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs