Manning v. Dimech
| Decision Date | 30 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | CV 15-05762 RSWL (PJWx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | TARYN MANNING, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINE DIMECH, a/k/a/ "CLINE MAYO", an individual; FIERCE FLIX, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
Currently before the Court is Defendants Caroline Dimech ("Dimech") and Fierce Flix's (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [14]. Defendants move the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Taryn Manning's ("Plaintiff") Complaint for declaratory judgment in its entirety. The Court, having considered all arguments presented, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [14].
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants over a trailer for the yet-to-be produced film at issue entitled "Droppers." Beginning in approximately 2007, Plaintiff partnered with Defendant Dimech to produce the motion picture tentatively titled "Droppers" (hereinafter "the Film.") Compl. ¶ 1. In February 2015, Plaintiff and Dimech produced a trailer for "Droppers" (hereinafter "the Trailer"). Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff was involved in the creation of the Trailer and starred in the Trailer. Id. Together, Plaintiff and Defendants produced the Trailer. Id. After the Trailer was completed, the business relationship between Plaintiff and Dimech ended. Id. Dimech has since threatened litigation against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff infringed upon a copyright belonging to Defendants by releasing the Trailer without Defendants' approval. Id. Defendants threatened litigation unless Plaintiff gave in to certain monetary demands. Id.
Plaintiff now seeks a judicial declaration of the following: (1) "[T]he parties' respective rights and obligations with respect to the copyright allegedly belonging to Defendants;" (2) "[T]hat she is not infringing, has not infringed, and is not liable forinfringing any valid copyright owned by Defendants, either directly, or by inducing others to infringe, or by contributing to the infringement of others;" (3) "Defendants do not have an interest in the purported copyright to the motion picture screenplay tentatively titled 'Droppers' sufficient to confer standing on them to pursue claims of infringement." Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants on July 29, 2015 [1]. On September 11, 2015, Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss [14]. On October 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [18]. On November 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Reply [19].
1. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal of one or more claims if the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal can be based on "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint "should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. (citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). In a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Klarfeld v. United States, 944 F.2d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1991).
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation omitted). A complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Local Rule 11-1 provides: L.R. 11-1. Here, Defendants' failed to sign their Motion to Dismiss [14].
It is well settled that a district court may dismiss an action "based on a party's ... failure to comply with federal or local rules of civil procedure." Ghazali v. Moran, 26 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a court may in its discretion elect to disregard such deficiencies, such as failure to sign a moving paper, "if it sees fit." See Gomez v. Macdonald, 2014 WL 1330528, at *2 (C.D. Cal. March 31, 2014). It is clear to this Court, from the face of Defendants' Motion and upon review of Defendants' Reply, that Defendants' failure to comply with Local Rule 11-1 was inadvertent. The Court thus hereby exercises its discretion, out of considerations of fairness and judicial economy, to nonetheless consider Defendants' Motion on the merits.
Local Rule 7-3 requires that "counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution." L.R. 7-3. The Local Rule further requires that this conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion. Id. Here, Defendants' Motion [14] was filed without the parties engaging in a "meet and confer" as required by Local Rule 7-3.
This Court may, in its discretion, refuse toconsider Defendants' Motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3. See, e.g., Reed v. Sandstone Properties, L.P., No. CV 12-05021 MMM (VBKx), 2013 WL 1344912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013). In her Opposition, Plaintiff neither demonstrates that Defendants' Motion is "unnecessary," nor does Plaintiff show that she has suffered prejudice as a result of the absence of a conference. Rather, Plaintiff merely states that if the parties' would have conferred prior to Defendants filing their Motion, Plaintiff's counsel would have informed Defendants' counsel of the current state of the law at issue and, as such, "[t]his entire exercise in motion practice could thus have been avoided." Opp'n 3:11-14. Thus, as there appears to be no prejudice to Plaintiff in considering Defendants' motion on the merits,1 the Court hereby exercises its discretion to do so. Reed, at *6; See Thomas v. U.S. Foods, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-1221-JST (JEMx), 2012 WL 5634847, at *1 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012) (). However, the Court admonishes Plaintiff of the seriousness of its failure to follow the Local Rules and cautions Plaintiff to fully comply with all local rules in the filing of anyfuture motions.
As a preliminary matter, this Court will clarify the nature and purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of its claim. Swierkiewica v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002). "When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994)). In keeping with that instruction, with few exceptions, "a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings" when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9thCir. 1994)).2 "[I]f a district court considers evidence outside the pleadings, it must normally convert the 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and it must give the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond." Richie, 342 F.3d at 907.
As the aforementioned exceptions do not apply to the present case, this Court declines to construe Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [14] as a motion for summary judgment at this early juncture. Here, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss rightfully focuses on the sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants' Motion makes no reference to or arguments against papers outside of the pleadings. Rather, only the Plaintiff seeks to use moving papers as support for the sufficiency of her Complaint. Plaintiff provides extensive new argument and evidence in her Opposition. However, this Court will not construe Defendants' Motion as a motion for summary judgment, and as such declines to consider the new evidence and allegationsbrought forth in Plaintiff's Opposition and accompanying exhibits.
Further, Plaintiff's argument that Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion is really an "improperly styled" motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not persuasive. See Opp'n 7:24-8:4. Defendants' Motion seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) on three grounds: (1) "Plaintiff has no standing to pursue her claim;" (2) "Plaintiff's claim is not ripe and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shahani v. Moctezuma
...Act is identical to Article III's constitutional case or controversy requirement."); see also Manning v. Dimech, No. CV 15-05762 RSWL (PJWx), 2015 WL 9581795, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015) ("A court may only hear a declaratory judgment action if the claim presents a justiciable case or co......