Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00145/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates,

Inc., an Arizona Corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Bruce C. Bosley and Joanne M. Bosley,

husband and wife, and the Bosley Group,

Inc., an Arizona Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-00145-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. #7). After reviewing the pleadings, the

Court issues the following Order.

I. Discussion

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #7) A motion to

dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) seeks to test the legal sufficiency of the factual

allegations made in the Complaint. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. 

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must simply allege

facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

Case 2:09-cv-00145-JWS Document 10 Filed 09/29/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

(2007). This pleading standard governs “all civil actions and proceedings in the United

States district courts.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1953 (2009). However, a

“motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely

granted.” Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be required to plead the copyright

infringement claim with a heightened degree of specificity. They rely on Paragon

Services, Inc. v. Hicks, 843 F. Supp. 1077, 1081 (E.D. Va. 1994), and urge this Court to

require Plaintiff to state (1) which specific original works are the subject of the claim, (2)

that plaintiff owns the copyrights in issue, (3) that the works in issue have been

registered, and (4) by what acts and during what time frame defendants have infringed on

the copyright. 

However, heightened pleading standards apply only to claims that fall under Rule

9(b), averments of fraud or mistake. All other claims are governed by Rule 8, which

merely requires “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). For this reason, Paragon has been criticized by a number of

treatises and other federal courts. E.g., 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed.

Practice and Procedure, § 1237 (2009) (explaining that cases like Paragon that have

imposed a heightened pleading requirement in copyright actions appear to violate the

“short and plain” mandate of Rule 8, particularly in light of relevant Supreme Court

decisions); Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp., 11 F.Supp.2d 788, 790 (E.D. Va. 1998)

(rejecting the heightened pleading requirements set forth in Paragon because they

appeared to violate Supreme Court precedent). 

Defendants acknowledge that the Ninth Circuit has never adopted the reasoning in

Paragon, but (somewhat inconsistently) claim that Paragon’s reasoning is nonetheless “in

sync with the general Rule 8 standard” because it “merely forces a claimant to allege

sufficient details about each element of its alleged copyright claims, and to put the

defendant on notice of the specific claims against him.” (Dkt.#7 at 4 n.6) However,

Case 2:09-cv-00145-JWS Document 10 Filed 09/29/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

requiring Plaintiff to specify additional details that Rule 8 does not require is necessarily

inconsistent with Rule 8, as the references mentioned above note. 

Thus, the Court must simply focus on whether the Complaint meets the

requirements of Rule 8 (“a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief”). Here, it appears that the basic elements of a copyright infringement claim are

already present in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges present ownership of the

copyright by the plaintiff (“RKAA is the owner of a number of copyrighted architectural

drawings, elevations, and specifications . . .”). (Dkt.#1 ¶ 13) The Complaint also

identifies the copyright registrations that were obtained for some of the works at issue.

(Dkt.#1 ¶¶ 13, 17) Finally, the Complaint alleges infringement of the copyright by

Defendants (“RKAA discovered that The Bosley Group had unlawfully used, copied,

and/or modified significant portions of RKAA’s Copyrighted Works in providing

competing architectural services . . . .”). (Dkt.#1 ¶ 15) Thus, the Complaint appears to

meet the minimal Rule 8 requirement of a “short and plain statement” demonstrating that

the pleader is entitled to relief.

Defendants argue that they cannot adequately prepare a response when some of the

alleged infringements do not specify a copyright registration number; however, they cite

no case law to support this claim besides Paragon (which is rejected for the reasons

explained above). The many questions Defendants identify in their motion as

unanswered by the Complaint are questions that should be addressed during discovery,

and are not a sufficient basis to dismiss the complaint. Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. Beverly

Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 842 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “concerns about specificity

in a complaint are normally handled by the array of discovery devices available to the

defendant”). While the Court appreciates that further details related to the alleged

copyright infringement will need to be developed during the course of this lawsuit, it

finds Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim sufficiently pled to withstand Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss.

Case 2:09-cv-00145-JWS Document 10 Filed 09/29/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Defendants further argue that “an allegation of mere ‘use’ of a copyrighted work,

without more, fails to state a claim. (Dkt.#7) However, as explained above, Plaintiff is

not merely alleging use of the copyrighted works. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants “used, copied, and/or modified significant portions” of the copyrighted

works. (Dkt.#1 ¶ 13)

Defendants further ask this Court to evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility in asserting its

copyright claims. They argue that “given Plaintiff’s history of filing unmeritorious

lawsuits, the Court should be weary [wary?] in permitting Plaintiff to allege, without

more, that it is the ‘owner’ of architectural renderings related to the work it has done for

Bashas.” (Dkt.#7 at 6) This assertion appears to be unsupported; Defendants fail to

identify a single case in which Plaintiff was adjudicated to have filed an unmeritorious

lawsuit. Moreover, it is not the proper role of the Court to evaluate the merits of

Plaintiff’s claim at this stage of the litigation. Even at summary judgment, the Court must

defer credibility determinations to the jury. The Court’s role on a motion to dismiss is

merely to determine whether the claims asserted are sufficiently pled. Here, Plaintiff’s

copyright claim appears to be sufficiently pled; consequently, Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is denied. 

Because the Court has denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, it likewise denies

Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6). (Dkt.#7)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendants to file an answer no later than

October 12, 2009 pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4).

DATED this 21st day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00145-JWS Document 10 Filed 09/29/09 Page 4 of 4