Mapp v. UMG Recordings, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-602-JWD-RLB
| Decision Date | 21 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-602-JWD-RLB |
| Parties | Desmond MAPP v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Roy H. Maughan, Jr., Joshua David Roy, Namisha D. Patel, The Maughan Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Desmond MAPP.
Loretta G. Mince, Jeanette Amedee Donnelly, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, Alysson L. Mills, Jesse Cobb Stewart, Fishman Haygood, LLP, Fishman Haygood, New Orleans, LA, for UMG Recordings, Inc.
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 16) filed by Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc. ("Defendants") pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C), and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and for Leave of Court to File a Rebuttal Memorandum.1 (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff Desmond Mapp ("Plaintiff") has filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 25) and a supplemental memorandum in opposition (Doc. 36); Defendant has replied to both documents (Docs. 28 and 39); and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Docs. 40, 42) to Defendant's supplemental brief, and attached a proposed second amended complaint.2 (Docs. 40-1, 42-2.) Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion to strike and for leave to file a rebuttal memorandum is DENIED.
Plaintiff is a record producer, singer, and songwriter residing in Baton Rouge, LA. (Doc. 2 at 2.) Defendant is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing records. Id. Tyga Music, LLC ("Tyga Music") is a special purpose entity formed to furnish the recording services of its owner, Michael Stevenson, p/k/a Tyga ("Stevenson") to Young Money Entertainment, LLC ("Young Money"). (Doc 2 at 2.) Young Money, through Defendant, provides Tyga Music with record distribution services throughout the United States. (Doc 2 at 2.)
Cash Money Records, Inc. ("Cash Money"), the principal of Young Money, has an ownership interest in all of Young Money's property.3 (Doc. 16-1 at 10.) Cash Money previously entered into a Licensing Agreement with Universal Records, granting Universal Records the exclusive right to "manufacture, distribute, sell, market, advertise, promote, and otherwise exploit Cash Money Product." Id. Defendant is the parent company and successor in interest to Universal Records.
On or about September 1, 2012, Plaintiff entered into a Producer Agreement ("the Agreement") with Tyga Music and Stevenson, through which Plaintiff agreed to furnish the music and Stevenson agreed to supply the lyrics to the song Molly. (Docs. 2 at 3, 16-2 at 1, 25 at 5.) Pursuant to the Agreement, upon completion of the song, Plaintiff delivered the finished product to Tyga Music. (Docs. 2 at 3, 16-2 at 1.) The Agreement indicated Plaintiff was to be compensated an advance of $10,000 plus royalties based on record sales.4 Plaintiff delivered the completed rendition of Molly to Stevenson per the Agreement, who in turn transferred his ownership interest in Molly to Young Money pursuant to a preexisting Recording Agreement.5 (Doc. 16-1 at 10.) Young Money subsequently delivered Molly to Defendant for exploitation of the song. (Doc. 2 at 3.)
Defendant, relying on the aforementioned agreements, began to exploit Molly as a single on March 29, 2013, and then as part of Stevenson's album Hotel California on April 9, 2013. (Doc. 2 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges Tyga Music failed to pay him the advances and the producer royalties,6 as required by the Agreement, and that it failed to respond to his amicable demand for payment. (Doc 2 at 3.)
On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff sued Tyga Music and Young Money in the 29th Judicial District Court ("29th JDC"), seeking judicial dissolution of the Agreement. (Doc. 2 at 4; Doc 16-1 at 4; see also Mapp v. Young Money Entm't L.L. C. , 78–463 (29th JDC 05/20/2015).) When Tyga Music and Young Money failed to answer or appear, the 29th JDC entered a default judgment in Plaintiff's favor, thereby dissolving the Agreement between Plaintiff and Tyga Music. Id. The 29th JDC entered its judgment on April 20, 2015. (Doc 16-1 at 4; see also Mapp v. Young Money Entm't L.L.C. , 78–463 (29th JDC 05/20/2015).) Plaintiff claims that his attorney sent Defendant notice by certified mail that the Agreement between Plaintiff and Tyga Music concerning Molly had been judicially dissolved, that Tyga Music's right to exploit Molly had been revoked, and that the marketing, manufacturing, and distribution of Molly should cease immediately.7 (Doc 2 at 4-5.)
On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a copyright registration for Molly and received a receipt. (Docs. 2 at 5, 2-3 at 1-3.) He paid the fee and obtained a copyright registration number, 1-2647940521. Id. In support of his claim of copyright infringement, Plaintiff alleges he is now the sole copyright owner of the sound recording of Molly , and thus under the Copyright Act, he retains the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and digitally stream the song. (Doc 2 at 5.) He further alleges Defendant continues to manufacture, distribute, and sell physical and digital versions of Molly to the public without his permission or consent. (Doc. 2 at 5-6.) He argues Defendant's actions constitute infringement of his copyright and his exclusive rights thereunder. (Doc 2 at 6.) Plaintiff further asserts Defendant's actions "have been willful and intentional in disregard of, and with indifference to, the rights of Plaintiff especially since they continue despite actual notice of the judicial dissolution of the September 1, 2012 Agreement." Id. He claims Defendant's actions entitle him to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Id.
On the other hand, Defendant admits it continues to manufacture, distribute, and sell the song Molly , but claims it holds to a valid license to do so. (Doc. 9 at 4, 7.) It otherwise steadfastly denies the factual allegations Plaintiff set forth in his complaint concerning his claim of copyright infringement. (Doc. 9 at 4.) Moreover, it claims that if it has infringed on any copyright interest held by Plaintiff, it did so innocently. (Doc. 9 at 7.)
Plaintiff alleges Defendant, as the beneficiary of the above-mentioned agreements between Tyga Music, Young Money, and Defendant, has claimed the exclusive right to manufacture, reproduce, sell, distribute, and stream Molly. He further claims that without Defendant's assistance, Stevenson, Tyga Music, and Young Money would be unable to exploit Molly. Plaintiff argues the following acts by Defendant constitute vicarious or contributory infringement of his copyright and his rights thereunder: facilitating the sale of Molly in physical and digital formats for Stevenson, Tyga Music, Young Money, and for others "claiming rights derivative of the foregoing persons and entities"; facilitating the "streaming" of Molly through online music service providers; and facilitating the licensing of Molly to third parties. (Doc. 2 at 7.) Further, he claims Defendant knew or should have known Stevenson, Tyga Music, and Young Money lacked the right to sell Molly , and that Defendant "materially facilitated their unlawful conduct and declined to exercise its right to stop or limit others from infringing [on] Plaintiff's copyright." Id. He claims he is entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's vicarious infringement of his copyright. Defendant admits it "claims the right to manufacture, reproduce, sell, distribute, and/or stream" Molly , but otherwise denies the allegations Plaintiff has made against it in respect to this claim.
Plaintiff also argues Defendant's conduct amounted to "unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of Louisiana law." (Doc. 2 at 8.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant's infringement, he has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial injury, loss and damage to his ownership rights. Id. He further alleges Defendant's actions "have proximately caused and will continue to cause [him] loss of customers, dilution of [his] goodwill, confusion of existing and potential customers, injury to [his] reputation, and diminution of the value of [his] products." Id. He argues the harm caused by Defendant's actions is "imminent and irreparable" and, noting he has no adequate remedy at law, requests an injunction restraining Defendant from engaging in further infringement of his copyright. Defendant denies all allegations made by Plaintiff with respect to this claim. Moreover, Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims under state law are preempted by the Copyright Act. (Doc. 9 at 7.)
Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer "great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money" as a result of Defendant's actions. Accordingly, he claims entitlement to injunctive relief "prohibiting Defendant from further infringing Plaintiff's copyright and ordering Defendant to destroy all copies of sound recordings made in violation of Plaintiff's exclusive rights" pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503. He further requests damages for each direct or indirect infringement of his copyright of Molly pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, and for damages for Defendant's violation of the LUTPA and for Defendant's unfair competition. He also requests that Defendant pay his costs and attorney's fees, and for such other relief to which he may be entitled. Defendant denies Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and argues he is not entitled to attorney's fees. (Doc. 9 at 6, 7.)
To continue reading
Request your trial