Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/09/riaa-complaint-dismissed-in-california.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:12:48+00:00

Document:
Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA Complaint Dismissed in California in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Judge Says Complaint is just "boilerplate listing"
RIAA Complaint Dismissed in California in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Judge Says Complaint is just "boilerplate listing"
In a default judgment case in Southern California, Interscope v. Rodriguez, 2007 WL 2408484, a judge has dismissed the RIAA's "boilerplate" complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I.e., the decision is in agreement with the defendants' arguments in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin.
Ironically, the case cited by the Court as support for its view that a complaint must be more than just conclusory boilerplate, was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007), the very same case cited by the RIAA recently in UMG v. Lindor in support of the RIAA's motion to dismiss Ms. Lindor's 4th affirmative defense.
The RIAA have known about the Interscope decision since August 17, 2007, but never disclosed its existence to Judge Robinson or to Judge Karas, the presiding judges in Cassin and in Barker.
The recent Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ---U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), sets forth a "plausibility" standard which a complaint must meet to sufficiently state a claim. "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-1965 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
As such, Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.
While all regular readers of your blog in the meantime are probably well aware that such a behaviour by the "well-known and respected recordcompanies" and their lawyers is not unusual; are there any FRCP rules that they were obliged to inform Judges Karas and Robinson that such a ruling exist that is good for copyrightlaw and bad for their boilerplate sheme?
Wow... this is huge. Unless I am misreading the document, there was no opposition to the default, and the judge sua sponte decided to crack RIAA.
Southern District of California? Then this is good news for all Internet users, but it's especially good news for Shawn Hogan, and those at San Diego State University. Hope they know about this!
Anyone want to guess what's next? My crystal ball predicts: RIAA re-files with an even bigger exhibit of MediaSentry mumbo jumbo, but still nothing connecting actual copyright infringement to an actual human being. Judge Brewster is still not amused.
I'm guessing that the judges in Cassin and Baker have already been informed (or will be informed as soon as the documents can be drawn up)? How did you stumble across this in the first place? It seems like this should have been found within days (of course the RIAA could have done the honest thing and informed someone of a relevent precedent instead of twitting their thumbs hoping to get a conflicting decision).
I read it and it looks as if the judge gave the RIAA a chance to refile a different complaint if they choose. I commend the judge for dismissing though. I am not sure what the RIAA will do here.
For the briefest second i actually teared up while reading the judges decision. Thank God there are still sparks of rational thought left in this world.
The proper filing would have been a General Demurrer. The defendant is lucky that the judge in this case picked up on this and decided to toss the case for failing to allege relevant facts.
This will have the effect of tightening up RIAA's pleadings. These lawsuits won't go away until the RIAA is financially bankrupt (they are already morally bankrupt, so no help there).

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