Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04976/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04976-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Plaintiff Equine Legal Solutions (“ELS”) does not oppose the defendants’ motion to

strike its request for statutory damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(c), 505.

Accordingly, ELS’s request for statutory damages and attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act

of 1976 is stricken.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUINE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHANE BUNTROCK, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04976 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

STRIKE

Now pending before the Court are two identical motions to strike filed by Defendants

Shane Buntrock and Sanders & Parks P.C., and by Defendant Primedia Enthusiast

Publications, Inc. Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff Equine Legal Solution’s

(“ELS”) request for attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and

for punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294.1

 See Complaint ¶¶ 82, 92. 

Because Plaintiff Equine Legal Solutions (“ELS”) has sufficiently pled oppression, malice,

and fraud, the motion to strike is DENIED as to punitive damages. However, the Court

GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the motion to strike as to attorney’s fees under §

1021.5 because ELS has not identified any public interest implicated by its Unfair

Competition Law claim. The hearing scheduled for Friday, January 11, 2008 is VACATED.

Case 3:07-cv-04976-CRB Document 40 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff ELS is a company that provides equine-related services and licenses legal

forms for use in equine transactions for a fee. See Compl. ¶ 1. According to the complaint,

defendant Buntrock and his former law firm, Sanders & Parks, were retained by defendant

Primedia to develop legal forms for equine-related services that would be disseminated to the

public via website. See id. ¶ 2. Instead of developing the forms independently, Buntrock

allegedly downloaded ELS’s forms and passed them on to Primedia, which posted the forms

on its website Equine.com for free use. See id. ¶¶ 20-37. 

ELS’s complaint includes five causes of action, including a claim of copyright

infringement and state-based causes of action for breach of contract, intentional interference

with prospective economic advantage, conversion, and unfair competition under the

California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code §

17200. See id. ¶¶ 56-92. As part of its claim for intentional interference, ELS argues that it

is entitled to an award of punitive damages. See id. ¶ 82. According to ELS, punitive

damages are justified pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, which permits the recovery

of punitive damages in actions involving “the breach of an obligation not arising from

contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been

guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” The defendants move to strike the request for

punitive damages on the ground that ELS has not made an adequate showing of oppression,

fraud, or malice. See Primedia Mot. at 9. 

ELS also seeks attorney’s fees under its UCL claim, on the theory that successful

prosecution of this action will result in “a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or

nonpecuniary, [being] conferred on the general public or a large class of persons.” Cal. Code

Civ. P. § 1021.5. The defendants move to strike the request for attorney’s fees because ELS

has failed to adequately allege that the litigation will confer “a significant benefit” on any

party other than ELS. See Primedia Mot. at 8.

Case 3:07-cv-04976-CRB Document 40 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “the court may order stricken from

any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). On a motion to strike, the court must view the

pleading under attack in the light most favorable to the pleader. See State of Cal. v. United

States, 512 F. Supp. 36, 39 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Further, in adjudicating a motion to strike, the

court should consider that “the function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure

of time and money[, which] arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those

issues prior to trial. . . .” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.

1983). Generally, Rule 12(f) motions are “disfavored” because they are “often used as

delaying tactics, and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.” 

Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (quotations and citations

omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Defendants argue that ELS’s request for punitive damages pursuant to § 3294 must be

stricken because the plaintiff has not shown that the defendants acted with oppression,

malice, or fraud. To the extent defendants believe that ELS’s statement is too indefinite,

their motion must be denied. While California law governs ELS’s substantive claim for

punitive damages under § 3294, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the punitive

damages claim procedurally with respect to the adequacy of pleadings. Clark v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 F.R.D. 405, 406-07 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 9(b) provides that “malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind of a

person may be averred generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Where, as here, the case does not

involve securities fraud, “plaintiffs may aver scienter generally, just as the rule states-that is,

simply by saying that scienter existed.” In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547

(9th Cir. 1994) (en banc), quoted in, Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 553 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-04976-CRB Document 40 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2007) (en banc). Thus, it is enough that ELS’s complaint alleges defendants “acted with

oppression, malice, and fraud.” Compl. ¶ 82.

If defendants mean to argue that the request for punitive damages must be stricken

because ELS has failed to present adequate evidence of scienter, then the motion must be

denied as premature. The Court will not weigh the sufficiency of evidence that has not yet

been offered; “at this point in the proceedings, evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence is

inappropriate.” Cardinale v. La Petite Academy, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1162 (D. Nev.

2002). The defendants should renew their motion, if at all, at the summary judgment stage.

B. Motion to Strike Request for Attorney’s Fees

Defendants move to strike ELS’s request for attorney’s fees under § 1021.5, arguing

that there is no allegation the litigation will confer a “significant benefit” on “the general

public or a large class of persons.” Defendants are correct that ELS has identified no public

interest implicated by its UCL claim. While the complaint alleges that the defendants

“impaired fair and honest competition” by misappropriating ELS’s legal forms, Compl. ¶ 90,

attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to § 1021.5 must be justified by reference to something

more definite than the public’s interest in the vague concept of “honest competition.” The

California legislature did not intend to authorize an award of fees in every case involving a

statutory or constitutional violation, but only where the lawsuit enforces important public

policies and thereby confers “a significant benefit” on “the general public or a large class of

persons.” Baxter v. Salutary Sportsclubs, Inc., 122 Cal. App. 4th 941, 945 (2004). While

misappropriation of ELS’s legal forms is, no doubt, a potential statutory violation of

significance to ELS, the notion that the public has a significant interest in this case, as

currently pled, is spurious. If anything, the public arguably benefitted – at ELS’s expense –

from free access to documents which otherwise required a fee. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-04976-CRB Document 40 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

It is appropriate to strike requests for attorney’s fees under § 1021.5 where, as here,

the plaintiff has failed to identify a public interest implicated by the suit. See Eldorado

Stone, LLC v. Renaissance Stone, Inc., 2005 WL 5517732, *11 (S.D. Cal. 2005). The Court

will therefore GRANT the defendants’ motion without prejudice. If ELS intends to file an

amended complaint identifying the public interest implicated by its UCL claim, it must do so

by Friday, February 1, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04976-CRB Document 40 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 5