Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00979/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00979-0/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

Case No. 3:11-CV-00979

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN ROBERT SMITH, a natural person, and

LINDA SMITH, a natural person,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOB BAKER FAMILY FOUNDATION, a taxexempt, non-profit corporation; HOLD AT ALL

COSTS, LLC, a California limited liability

company; BOB BAKER MAZDA, a business

entity of unknown form; and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:11-CV-979-MMA (WVG)

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE OF

INTENT TO CONVERT MOTION and

CONVERTING MOTION PURSUANT

TO FED R. CIV. P. 12(d); and

VACATING SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

HEARING DATE

Glenn and Linda Smith (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Bob Baker Family Foundation

and Hold At All Costs, LCC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging claims for violations of the

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 101 et seq. and various state law claims. Currently pending before

the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, with supporting

declaration and exhibits [Doc. No. 13]. Defendants filed a reply [Doc. No. 14]. The matter is

currently set for hearing on September 12, 2011.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00979-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. 3:11-CV-00979

2

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of

bankruptcy records in Plaintiffs’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, In re Glenn Robert Smith, Linda Costa

Smith, case no. 10-12241-LA 7. Defendants request the Court take particular notice of two

documents filed in the bankruptcy case, entitled “Schedule B - Personal Property” and “Declaration

Concerning Debtor’s Schedules.” The Court grants Defendants’ request, and takes judicial notice of

the documents requested by Defendants. FED. R. EVID. 201; see Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa

USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of related court filings as

matters of readily verifiable public record).

In support of their opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs submitted declarations from

Plaintiff Glenn Smith and Plaintiffs’ attorney Don Lawton. Plaintiffs also submitted two exhibits, a

letter from Lawton to the trustee assigned to Plaintiffs’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, and a copy of

Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen their bankruptcy case. Plaintiffs did not submit a request for judicial

notice of any of the aforementioned documents. The declarations and exhibits are responsive to

Defendants’ argument that the Court should apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to Plaintiffs’

copyright infringement claims. Although the copy of the motion to reopen Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy

proceedings is a public record that is proper for judicial notice, the rest of Plaintiffs’ declarations and

exhibits are matters outside the pleadings. 

In general, courts do not consider “matters outside the pleadings” at the motion to dismiss

stage. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), 12(d). “The two exceptions to this rule are: 1) the court may

properly take judicial notice of material which is included as part of the complaint or relied upon by

the complaint; and 2) the court may properly take judicial notice of matters in the public record.” 

Ngoc Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010), citing Lee v.

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688–69 (9th Cir. 2001). If either party to the motion to dismiss

submits materials outside the pleadings, the court has discretion to consider or reject such materials. 

See Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1143–46 (9th Cir. 2003). However, in order to consider

“matters outside the pleadings,” a court must generally convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for

summary judgment and give all parties “a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is

pertinent to the motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12.

Case 3:11-cv-00979-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 09/06/11 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. 3:11-CV-00979

3

The Court intends to look beyond the pleadings and consider the declarations and exhibits

submitted by Plaintiffs in ruling on the presently pending motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion

shall be converted to a motion for summary judgment, and the parties will be permitted an

opportunity to file additional briefing and evidence “to present all the material that is pertinent to the

motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). The parties shall adhere to the Court’s special instructions as set

forth in this Order, in lieu of the undersigned’s civil chambers rule regarding motions for summary

judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is converted to a Motion for

Summary Judgment under Rule 56;

2. Defendants may file additional briefing, not to exceed 15 pages, and submit

additional evidence in support of the motion on or before October 3, 2011;

3. Plaintiffs may file additional responsive briefing, not to exceed 15 pages, and submit

additional evidence on or before October 10, 2011;

4. The parties may file evidentiary objections, if any, on or before October 17, 2011; 

5. The hearing scheduled for September 12, 2011 is VACATED. Upon receipt of the

parties’ submissions, the Court will issue an order resetting the hearing date, if appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00979-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 09/06/11 Page 3 of 3