UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEAN HALL, doing business as Gimme

Some Hot Sauce Music, an individual; 

NATHAN BUTLER, doing business as 

Faith Force Music, an individual, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55426 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS 

Central District of California, 

Los Angeles 

ORDER

Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

The Memorandum Disposition, filed on October 28, 2019, and reported at 

782 F. App’x 639 (9th Cir. 2019), is amended as follows: 

At 782 F. App’x at 639, all text, starting with the paragraph beginning with

<Originality, as we have long recognized> through the final paragraph concluding 

with <we reverse the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).> is deleted. 

Footnote 1 remains and follows the second full paragraph at 782 F. App’x at 639, 

ending with <See Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).>. 

A clean copy of the amended memorandum disposition is attached to this 

order. 

FILED

DEC 5 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

There has been no timely petition for panel rehearing or petition for 

rehearing en banc. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be 

filed. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEAN HALL, doing business as Gimme

Some Hot Sauce Music, an individual; 

NATHAN BUTLER, doing business as 

Faith Force Music, an individual, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55426 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS 

AMENDED MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 15, 2019

San Diego, California

Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Sean Hall and Nathan Butler (together, Hall) appeal from the district court’s 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of their complaint against 

Taylor Swift, Martin Sandberg, and Karl Schuster (together, Swift) alleging 

copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Swift’s hit song Shake It Off

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

DEC 5 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(2014) illegally copied a six-word phrase and a four-part lyrical sequence from

Hall’s Playas Gon’ Play (2001). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See 

Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). As the parties are 

familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed the complaint based on a lack of originality in 

the pertinent portions of Hall’s work. See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 810 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (“Any copyrighted expression must be ‘original.’ Although the amount 

of creative input . . . required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not 

negligible.” (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 

345, 362 (1991))); see also 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.05[B] (2017) (noting that 

originality is established when “the work originates in the author” and “has a spark 

that goes beyond the banal or trivial”). Even taking into account the matters of 

which the district court took judicial notice, see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 

903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003), Hall’s complaint still plausibly alleged originality. 

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

1

REVERSED and REMANDED.

1 Swift argues that this Court should affirm the district court’s decision on other 

grounds. However, we decline to do so. The district court may consider Swift’s 

alternative arguments on remand.