Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01124/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01124-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

1

The Court declines Plaintiffs’ suggestion to treat the pending motion as a Rule 12(c)

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Capitol Records, Inc., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Deborah Weed, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-1124-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff record companies filed this copyright infringement suit against Defendant

Weed on April 21, 2006. Ms. Weed answered the complaint on July 17, 2007. She filed a

motion to amend her answer (Doc. #39) on December 21, 2007. Ms. Weed then filed the

pending motion to dismiss (Doc. #47) on January 23, 2008.

In her pending motion, Ms. Weed argues we should dismiss the Complaint pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). But a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim must be filed before the responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); Elvig v. Calvin

Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). Ms. Weed did not file her motion

to dismiss until more than six months after she had answered the complaint and more than

a month after seeking leave to file an amended answer – at which time the case had been

pending close to two years. The Court therefore will deny the motion to dismiss as

untimely.1

Case 2:06-cv-01124-JAT Document 62 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #47).

DATED this 29th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01124-JAT Document 62 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 2