Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/278124489/Beats-v-Lamar-Opinion
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:14:49+00:00

Document:
Beats Electronics, LLC v. Steven Lamar, et al.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Assn, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.
of right of publicity. (See FAC at 43-87).
trademark draws on Dr. Dres famous name and image, as well as on the Dr. Dre trademark.
Capitalization, emphasis, alterations, and quotation marks in FAC altered without notation.
among others, Lamar, SLS, and Jibe Audio, LLC (Jibe Audio), a company owned by Lamar.
no further relationship with Lamar, SLS, or Jibe Audio. (See id.).
Beats headphones and products have enjoyed tremendous popularity and sales. (Id. at 21).
numerous performing artists and famous athletes. (Id.). According to plaintiffs, [t]he use of Dr.
Defendants planned new products to Beats and Dr. Dre. (Id.).
products. (See id. at 32).
California Civil Code 3344. (See id. at 76-87).
Agreement provides for royalty payments to Pentagram. (Id., citing Royalty Agreement at 1(b)).
689 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
obligations under the Settlement Agreement. (See Oppn at 4).
presentations to representatives from Apple and Monster, LLC regarding the Beats Headphones.
(collectively, settlement agreements). (See id. at 27).
Schedule I to the Settlement Agreement. (Id.).
The state court action is titled Hinrichs & Associates, et. al. v. Beats Electronics, LLC, et.
al., LASC, Case No. BC 533089. (See Oppn at 2; Cross Compl.).
recites them here only for purposes of determining whether they are related to the present claims.
U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct.
and internal quotation marks omitted); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964.
absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med.
a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim.
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).
have been brought as compulsory cross-claims in the state court action. (See Motion at 8-13).
have been brought in that action. (See Oppn at 10-14).
421 F.3d 963, 973 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005), including a state-court action. Cheiker v. Prudential Ins.
v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 1987).
assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded. Cal. Code Civ. P.
426.30(a).5 California Code of Civil Procedure 426.10 includes cross-complaints, Cal. Code Civ.
plaintiff alleges in his complaint. Id. at 426.10(c).
The purpose of Californias compulsory cross-claim statute is to avoid piecemeal litigation.
not submit his case in piecemeal fashion. Flickinger, 45 Cal.2d at 393.
isolated act or occurrence but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated.
Med. Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen, 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 777 (1982) (California courts have . . .
after the initial Studio headphone. (See id. at 13-65).
headphone brand, and  Lamar and Jibe Audio were responsible for its concept and design.
(Motion at 11, citing Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.
and/or Dre designed certain headphones as depicted on Schedule I to the Royalty Agreement .
various claims. In other words, the claims are logically related.6 See Eagle Precision Techs., Inc.
DISMISSAL WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (The policy favoring amendment must be applied with extreme liberality.).
within the discretion of the trial court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S.
and the state court action involved FDCPA claims, the court would find Hart and Campos relevant.
plaintiffs claims for commercial misappropriation should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
186 & n. 3 (9th Cir. 1987).
Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir.
has previously amended the complaint.); Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.
plaintiffs claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Amended Complaint (Document No. 30) is granted. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Divinagracia vs. Consolidated Broadcasting Systems, Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.