Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distribution

• Decision Date: 09 August 2007
• Docket Number: No. CV-02-8330ODWCTX.,No. CV02-9856ODWCTX.,CV02-9856ODWCTX.,CV-02-8330ODWCTX.
• Citation: 513 F.Supp.2d 1172
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Bappi LAHIRI, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC & VIDEO DISTRIBUTION, INC., et al, Defendants. Saregama India Limited v. Andre Young pka Dr. Dre, et a., Defendants.

513 F.Supp.2d 1172

Bappi LAHIRI, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC & VIDEO DISTRIBUTION, INC., et al, Defendants.

Saregama India Limited v. Andre Young pka Dr. Dre, et a., Defendants.

No. CV02-9856ODWCTX.

No. CV-02-8330ODWCTX.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division.

August 9, 2007.

Anthony Kornarens, Law Offices of Anthony Kornarens, Santa Monica, for Plaintiff.

Russell J. Frackman and Jeffrey D. Goldman, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OTIS D. WRIGHT II, District Judge.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This renewed Motion for Summary Judgment concerns the alleged copyright infringement of the song Thoda Resham Logta Hai ("Thoda") by Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp., and various other individuals and entities ("Defendants"). Thoda was allegedly written by Bappi Lahiri ("Lahiri") for the Indian film Jyoti pursuant to a two-page agreement with Pramod Films ("Pramod"), the producer of Jyoti. The movie and accompanying soundtrack were released in India in 1981. Pramod later assigned the music copyrights in Jyoti to Saregama India Limited ("Saregama").

In 2002, Lahiri learned that Thoda "had been sampled and used as the `hook' and the main musical track in the hip hop song Addictive, which is performed by an artist known as Truth Hurts and released by Defendants on an album called `Truthfully Speaking.'" (Opp'n at 2.) On April 16, 2003, Lahiri "obtained a certificate of registration to the copyright for the composition, Thoda, from the U.S. Copyright Office." (Opp'n at 3; Lahiri Decl., Exs. B, C.) Two weeks later, "Saregama also registered its copyright in the sound recording and the musical composition with the U.S. Copyright Office." (Opp'n at 3.) Lahiri and Saregama then filed separate complaints against Defendants, which were subsequently consolidated into this action.

On November 3, 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action. Defendants pointed out that Lahiri and Saregama offer conflicting claims for copyright ownership in Thoda, and argued that they should litigate that issue separately before proceeding against Defendants. Alternatively, Defendants argued the Court should enter summary judgment against Lahiri because he is not the copyright owner of Thoda under India's copyright law. Lahiri and Saregama responded by filing their own motions for summary judgment on their respective copyright infringement claims.

After noting that both Lahiri and Saregama hold U.S. copyright registrations in Thoda,¹ and that they agree amongst themselves that they are co-owners of such copyrights, the Court found "no genuine issue exists as to Plaintiffs' copyright ownership of Thoda." (Order of July 16, 2004 at 7.) Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants' motions and granted (in part) Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, finding Lahiri and Saregama co-owners of the copyrights in Thoda.² On March 29, 2006, the Court denied Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (Order of March 29, 2006.)

On February 23, 2007, the case was reassigned to the Honorable John F. Walter. [Docket No. 356.] After Judge Walter set a hearing date on this renewed motion [Docket No. 367], the case was transferred to this Court. [Docket No. 439.] This Court then reset the hearing date on Defendants' motion for Monday, July 2, 2007. [Docket No. 440.]

Having considered the arguments and evidence raised in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, Defendants' Motion for Summary-Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c) requires summary judgment for the moving party when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Tarin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir.1997).

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). That burden may be met by "`showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is. an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party has met its initial burden, Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "A scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of material fact." Addisu v. Fred Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.2000).

Only genuine disputes — where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party — over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Arpin v. Santa. Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.2001) (the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor).

B. Lahiri's Threshold Concerns

Lahiri offers several reasons why this Court should not revisit its July 16, 2004 decision and the subsequent denial of Defendants' motion for reconsideration. First, Lahiri argues that Defendants failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. (Opp'n at 6-7.) As Defendants point out, however, this argument "is a non sequitur." (Reply at 4.) The matter before the Court is Defendants' renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, not their motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Lahiri's argument is inapposite.

Second, Lahiri argues that "the law of the case doctrine" precludes this Court from revisiting its prior decision. (Opp'n at 6.) This argument misapprehends the doctrine. "[T]he law of case doctrine merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their power." Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (citations omitted). "A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance." Id. Accordingly, because this Court is considering a motion previously decided by another judge in the same courthouse, the law of the case doctrine does not preclude it from revisiting its prior decision.³

Finally, Lahiri argues that Defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 7-17, which governs the "resubmission of motions previously acted upon." Specifically, when Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment before a new judge, they failed "to file and serve a declaration setting forth the material facts and circumstances as to each prior motion, including the date and judge involved in the prior motion, the ruling, decision, or order made, and the new or different facts or circumstances claimed to warrant relief and why such facts or circumstances were not shown to the judge who ruled on the motion." (Opp'n at 7 n. 4.) (citing Local Rule 7-17.)

Although failure to comply with Local Rule 7-17 "shall be the basis for setting aside any order made on such subsequent motion, either sua sponte `or on motion or application," Id., the Court will not invoke the Rule to bar Defendants' motion. The Court was well aware that this motion had already been acted upon by another judge when it directed Defendants to resubmit their motion. Accordingly, Defendants' failure to file a declaration is excused. The Court now turns to the merits of Defendants' motion.

C. Lahiri Does Not Own the Copyright in Thoda,

Defendants contend that "as a matter of law, Plaintiff Bappi Lahiri has never owned and does not own the copyright in Thoda [because he was engaged by Pramod to compose and produce the song for its film, Jyoti]." (Mot. at 1.) Thus, Defendants argue, Lahiri "lacks standing to maintain his copyright infringement claim and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that claim." (Id.) The Court agrees.

1. Copyright Ownership Under the Indian Copyright Act

The resolution of this motion turns on the holding of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. East Indian Motion Picture Association and Others, A.I.R.1977 S.C. 1443 ("IPRS").⁴ In IPRS, the Court tackled "the following substantial question of law of general importance: Whether in view of the provisions of the [Indian] Copyright Act, 1957, an existing and future right of [a] music ... composer [or] lyricist is capable of assignment and whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the same by engaging the same person." IPRS, ¶ 1.

After setting out the facts of the case and the applicable provisions of India's Copyright Act ("Copyright Act"), the Court announced two distinct rules.⁵ First, pursuant to Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, "[o]nce the author of a lyric or musical work parts with a portion of his copyright by authorizing a film producer to make a cinematograph film in respect of his work ... the latter acquires ... a copyright which gives him the exclusive right, inter alia, of performing the work in public. [...] The composer of a lyric or musical work, however, retains the right of performing it in public for profit other than as a part of the cinematograph work." Id., ¶ 15. Second, and dispositive of the matter before this Court, "[i]t is [] crystal clear that the right of a music ... composer or lyricist can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of Section 17 of the Act."⁶ Id., ¶ 17.

The Court...