JibJab Media Inc v. Hyundai Motor America et al
Filing
87
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to File a Second Amended Complaint 82 ; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 77 . The Court finds that plaintiff should be permitted leave to f ile its proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Court directs the Clerk to file plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint forthwith. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to defendant bringing a renewed motion directed to the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-9591-CAS (MANx)
Title
JIBJAB MEDIA, INC. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 1, 2013
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
Not present
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants
Not present
Not present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [82 ] (filed
July 25, 2013)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [77
] (filed July 22, 2013)
On November 8, 2012, plaintiff JibJab Media, Inc. (“JibJab”), filed suit against
Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”), Hub Strategy and Communication (“Hub
Strategy”), Brad Benson, and three Hyundai auto dealerships: Edison Motor Cars, Inc.
dba Brad Benson Auto Group, Plaza Hyundai, Ltd., and Robert Tingley dba Larry H.
Miller Hyundai of Hillsboro. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that defendants aired various
commercials that infringe upon plaintiff’s copyrighted works, in violation of state and
federal law. Hyundai and Hub Strategy are the only defendants remaining in the case.
On July 22, 2013, Hyundai filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that
it had no involvement whatsoever in producing the subject advertisements that allegedly
infringed on plaintiff’s protected works. According to the sworn declaration of its
marketing director, these advertisements are a form of “third-tier” marketing, which are
not created or approved by Hyundai before being publicly disseminated. As a result,
Hyundai allegedly did not learn of these advertisements until the instant lawsuit. For
these reasons, it argues that it cannot be held liable on a theory of direct infringement set
forth in plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has opposed this
motion.
On July 25, 2013, plaintiff filed this ex parte application for leave to file a second
amended complaint, lodged currently with its application. Plaintiff avers that it has
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-9591-CAS (MANx)
Date
August 1, 2013
Title
JIBJAB MEDIA, INC. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.
determined that its claims are more appropriately alleged as claims of indirect
infringement, based upon Hyundai’s vicarious or contributory liability for the acts of its
agents; namely, the car dealerships who produced the subject advertising. Therefore,
plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, which would moot
Hyundai’s motion directed at plaintiff’s claims of direct infringement. Defendant has
opposed plaintiff’s application.
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that plaintiff should be
permitted leave to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint forthwith. Defendant is
correct that both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16 apply to the consideration of
plaintiff’s application—the deadline for amending pleadings passed on June 6, 2013.
However, the Court finds “good cause” for amending the scheduling order to permit an
amendment in this case.
Most importantly, discovery is just beginning in this litigation. Plaintiff has
unsuccessfully sought to obtain discovery from the recently dismissed car dealerships,
who have apparently moved to quash the subpoenas with which they were served.
Moreover, it took the parties substantial time to formulate and implement a protective
order related to defendant’s confidential documents. Plaintiff has also indicated its intent
to compel further responses to its discovery requests from Hyundai. The parties will
have ample time to resolve these disputes and bring any further dispositive motions—the
discovery cut-off in this case is not until December 20, 2013, and the cut-off for filing
dispositive motions is not until January 6, 2013.1
Therefore, with little progress having been made in discovery related to the claims
in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, defendant will suffer little prejudice, if any, if
plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint directed towards its indirect theories of
liability. Furthermore, plaintiff sought to file its amended complaint immediately after
1
Alternatively, even if the Court were to deny plaintiff’s ex parte application, the
Court would find that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be denied under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), as plaintiff has demonstrated that it has not had
the opportunity to conduct discovery that could go towards defeating defendant’s motion.
In light of the outstanding discovery, it would be premature to adjudicate defendant’s
motion for summary judgment.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-9591-CAS (MANx)
Date
August 1, 2013
Title
JIBJAB MEDIA, INC. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.
defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, albeit on an ex parte basis. While the
Court does not condone such filings and admonishes plaintiff to file a noticed motion in
the future, given the status of this case, given the status of this case, the Court finds it
appropriate to grant plaintiff’s application here.
Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to file plaintiff’s proposed Second
Amended Complaint forthwith. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED
as moot, without prejudice to defendant bringing a renewed motion directed to the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 3 of 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
