Roberts v. Gordy

• Decision Date: 08 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 13-24700-CIV-WILLIAMS
• Citation: 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481,181 F.Supp.3d 997
• Parties: William L. Roberts, II, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Stefan Kendal Gordy, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

181 F.Supp.3d 997

118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481

William L. Roberts, II, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Stefan Kendal Gordy, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13-24700-CIV-WILLIAMS

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed April 8, 2016

Jonathan L. Gaines, Karen Linda Stetson, GrayRobinson P.A., Richard Charles Wolfe, Wolfe Law Miami, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Barry Lawrence Rothberg, Greenberg Traurig, Miami, FL, Nina D. Boyajian, Vincent H. Chieffo, Greenberg Traurig LLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER

KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Parties' competing motions for summary judgment (DE 228, DE 230), which are fully briefed. This case, which has been pending for more than two years, has taken a circuitous route only to arrive at where it should have begun: Was the musical composition Hustlin ' validly registered with the Copyright Office, and, if so, do Plaintiffs have an ownership interest in the exclusive right to prepare derivative works for the musical composition Hustlin '?

I. BACKGROUND AND UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs William L. Roberts, Jermaine Jackson, and Andrew Harr filed this action on December 31, 2013 alleging that the musical composition Party Rock Anthem infringed on their copyright to the musical composition Hustlin' .¹ (DE 1). In that complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that they were "copyright owners under United States copyright law with respect to the musical composition entitled 'Hustlin " which is the subject of a valid Certificate of Copyright Registration issued by the Register of Copyrights." (DE 1 ¶ 35) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs did not identify any specific certificate of copyright registration for Hustlin '. On March 9, 2014, Defendants filed an answer, identifying at the outset, a crucial problem with Plaintiffs' case:

[C]opyright registration records of the United States Copyright Office identify Plaintiffs Roberts, Harr, and Jackson and non-party Bernard Rogers as the co-authors of either lyrics or words and music of one or more compositions entitled Hustlin' ; said Defendants further allege that copyright registration records filed February 28, 2006 in the United States Copyright Office identify Plaintiff Roberts (but no other Plaintiff) and non-party Bernard Rogers as two of four copyright claimants to a composition created in 2005 entitled Hustlin' ; said Defendants further allege that the copyright registration records filed February 28, 2007 in the United States Copyright office identify Plaintiffs Harr and Jackson (but no other Plaintiff) as two of six copyright claimants to a composition created in 2006 entitled Hustlin' ; said Defendants further allege that other copyright registration records filed February 28, 2006 in the United States Copyright office do not identify Plaintiffs, or any of them, as the copyright claimants to a composition created in 2006 entitled Hustlin' , and, except as so alleged, said Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore deny them.

(DE 14 ¶ 35).

On September 15, 2014,² Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint again asserting that they were owners under copyright law with respect to the musical composition Hustlin ' which "is the subject of a valid Certificate of Copyright Registration." (DE 34 ¶¶ 44, 53, 61). Plaintiffs did not identify their particular ownership interests or which of the three registrations identified by Defendants in their answer was the "valid Certificate of Copyright Registration" referenced in the amended complaint. On September 29, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint, again pointing out the fatal inconsistencies posed by multiple copyright registrations and denying that Plaintiffs had a valid copyright registration. (DE 38 ¶¶ 44, 53, 61). Two days later, on October 1, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that any use of Hustlin' in Party Rock Anthem was a fair use. (DE 44). Two days after that, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (DE 55). Because the motions were filed before discovery would be completed, on October 15, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion. (DE 65). That same day, Defendants filed a 13-page motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting the motion for extension of time along with more than 170 pages of exhibits in support of that motion. (DE 66, 67, 68, 69).

On February 27, 2015,³ the Parties had a discovery hearing before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton. At that hearing, Defendants raised the issue of multiple copyright registrations and requested information regarding the original copyright registration and the relationship of Bernard Rogers to the dispute. (DE 190 at 53-54; 58-59). In response, Plaintiffs informed Judge Simonton—although they never addressed this issue in their papers before this Court or in their amended complaints—that they "did not stand behind" the first copyright registration. (Id. at 58-59). Plaintiffs asserted that "it's not unusual for there to be more than one registration" and that "as far as [Plaintiffs] were concerned that the—you know, it was not a valid registration, that the superseding registrations were the valid registrations." (Id. at 63).

On March 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (DE 158). In that complaint, Plaintiffs repeated that they were copyright owners of the musical composition Hustlin ' "which is the subject of a valid Certificate of Copyright Registration issued by the Register of Copyrights." (DE 158 ¶ 44). Again, and despite having discussed the issue with Judge Simonton, Plaintiffs did not identify any certificate of copyright registration nor did they identify their ownership interests. On March 18, 2015, Defendants answered the second amended complaint and, as they had done previously, denied that Plaintiffs had a valid copyright and pointed out the inconsistencies presented in the three copyright registrations. (DE 174 ¶ 44).

On March 13, 2015, a week after the second amended complaint was filed and more than a year after the litigation commenced, First-N-Gold Publishing Inc. ("FNG") filed a motion to intervene. (DE 172). In that motion, FNG stated both that it was a "50% owner of the copyright to the composition entitled 'Hustlin"' and that it claimed "a 25% ownership interest in the copyright of Hustlin' attributable to the contributions of Plaintiff, Williams Roberts a/k/a Rick Ross, equivalent to a 25% income interest in the composition, having acquired same pursuant to written contract dated June 25, 2001." (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2). As would become emblematic of the ownership claims in this case, FNG did not identify what rights it owned in the composition. FNG asserted that it had "filed a timely registration with the U.S. Copyright Office asserting it's (sic) interest in the copyright to 'Hustlin"' and attached to its motion Registration PA-1-334-589—the first copy of any registration presented to the Court after nearly a year and a half of litigation. (Id. ¶ 3; DE 179-3). Defendants opposed the motion to intervene (DE 177). Plaintiffs advised that "FNG's joinder is not essential to the action (it is certainly not an indispensable party)." (DE 178). The Court denied the motion. (DE 189).

On June 26, 2015, the Court heard argument on Defendants' first motion for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of fair use. (DE 215). At that hearing, the Court asked Plaintiffs:

THE COURT: Where is it in the complaint and what is the ownership interest your clients have? That was not—we went straight to the affirmative use we have kind of glossed over all the rest... I really have no idea what we are talking about in terms of your client's interest. Maybe we could talk about that ...

MS. STETSON: I will address that Your Honor. My clients are either legal and/or equitable owners of the copyright of Hustlin '.

THE COURT: When will we know whether they are one or the other or both?

MS. STETSON: This will all be laid out.

THE COURT: All right. It is not clear to me—and it may be clear to all of you—what interest your clients have at this juncture in the copyrighted musical composition.

MS. STETSON: They are legal and/or beneficial owners of the copyright of the composition of Hustlin '.

The Parties filed additional summary judgment motions on July 13, 2015 (DE 228, 230), which are presently before the Court. On September 15, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on Count 3 of the second amended complaint. (DE 331). In that Order, the Court stated:

For the purposes of this Order, the Court assumes, without deciding, that Plaintiffs are either the legal or beneficial owners of some portion of the copyright in the musical composition Hustlin '. However, ownership of the copyright in the musical composition (for which three registrations exist) is a serious, unresolved issue and the subject of two other motions for summary judgment.

(Id. ). Two days later, on September 17, 2015, the Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment on fair use. (DE 347). In that Order, the Court noted that the issue of whether Plaintiffs had standing to bring suit by virtue of some yet undetermined ownership interest still had not been addressed and was the subject of two other motions for summary judgment, which were not fully briefed. (Id. at 1).

Following the summary judgment motions, the Parties filed numerous pre-trial motions in limine , Daubert motions, motions to strike, as well as proposed jury instructions (DE 353) and a pre-trial stipulation (DE 355). The Court held a pre-trial conference in this matter on October 6, 2015. (DE 367). At that hearing, the Court returned to the matter of Plaintiffs' failure to take a definitive position regarding what ownership interest, if any, they held. The Court also inquired why...