Gold Value International Texile, Inc. v. Charlotte Russe, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings

C.D. Cal.January 23, 2017

DATE: TIME CTRM: February 28, 2017 10:00 a.m. 8B STEVEN H. HANEYISBN 121980) HANEY & YOUNG LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-6500 Facsimile: (213j 228-6501 Email: shaneyighaneyyoung.com Attorneys for Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE,d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, VS. CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-08130-CBM (PLAx) (RELATED CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-00294-CBM) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS IF.R.C.P. 12(c)]; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)] CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC, a California. Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant. ACTION FILED: 11/1/16 TO: THIS HONORABLE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10:00 a.m. on February 28, 2017 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 8B of the above-entitled court, located at 350 W. lst Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall presiding, defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc., will and hereby does move the Court for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c), or in the alternatively, to dismiss this action pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the operative complaint in the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:63 instant action is wholly duplicative of the complaint filed in Case No. 2:16-cv-00294- CBM-PLA and is otherwise indistinguishable. The instant action and 2nd case filed by plaintiff against moving defendant comprises the same plaintiff, the same defendant, the same copyright, the same fabric, the same article of clothing (top), and alleges the very same infringement claim. Defendant asserts the instant 2nd Case was filed for an improper purpose, namely in an effort to conduct discovery in the 1st Case after the court's imposed discovery cut-off. When filing the 2nd Case, plaintiff also failed to comply with its obligation to file a Notice of Related Case. This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place as noted in the Declaration of Steven H. Haney. This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying declarations of Steven H. Haney and Felipa Richland, the pleadings and papers on file in this action and the related action or deemed to be on file at the time this Motion is heard, other such evidence and argument as may be presented in connection with the hearing of this Motion, and all matters of which this Court may take judicial notice. DATED: January 23, 2017 HANEY & YOUNG LLP By: Steven H. Haney Attorney for Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. 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 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:64 POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Following discovery cut-off in the related action, Plaintiff filed a 2nd action against defendant for the very same alleged infringement based on the same garment and same copyright. Plaintiff did not Notice the related action as is required. Defendant having noticed the Related Action, the instant case was transferred from the Judge Wu's court. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The 1St Case - No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLAx On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant in United States Central District of California, (hereafter the "Pt Case "), which alleges a purported fabric copyright infringement by Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. arising out of the retail sale of a women's top. (See Exh. 1 - Complaint; Request for Judicial Notice re Exh. 1 ["RFJN"], Declaration of Steven H. Haney ¶1 ["Haney Decl."]) On April 5, 2016, the court issued a Scheduling Order imposing non-expert discovery cut-off on September 30, 2106, and expert discovery cut-off on November 15, 2016. (See Exh. 2.; RFJN re Exh. 2; Haney Decl.T 2) On September 20, 2016, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the court extended the non-expert discovery cut-off to October 28, 2016. (See Exh. 3.; RFJN re Exh. 3; Haney Decl.'11 3) B. The 2" Instant Case - No. 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLAx On November 1, 2016 (3 days after the discovery cut-off in the 1st Case) Plaintiff filed the second action against Charlotte Russe, Inc. (hereafter the "2" Case") again alleging a purported fabric copyright infringement by Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. arising out of the retail sale of a women's top (See Exh. 4- Complaint; RFJN re Exh. 4; Haney Declii 4) / / / / / / / / / 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 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:65 C. Both Actions Concern Identical Facts. The duplication of allegations and claims in both actions are summarized as follows: Fact/Issue 1st Case 2nd Case Plaintiff : Gold Value International Textile same Defendant : Charlotte Russe, Inc. same Copyright Reg No. : VA 1-938-289 for textiles same Infringing Item : Women's Top same III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD A. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS TIMELY. The instant motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed as long as the motion is made after the pleadings are closed and early enough not to delay trial. Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, NA, 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)). B. DUPLICATIVE ACTIONS/CLAIMS ARE PROPERLY DISMISSED. Where all claims rest on the same factual allegations, would be decided under the same legal standards as one another, and authorize the same form of relief, courts should dismiss such duplicative claims, as a matter of judicial economy, N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, 887 F. Supp. 2d 78, (D.D.C. 2012) (Partial motion for judgment on the pleadings granted); See also Harvey v. Mohammed, 841 F. Supp. 2d 164, 181 (D.D.C. 2012) (Lamberth, C.J.) (Court dismissed medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims because they were duplicative of a medical malpractice claim, noting "[a]ll three claims rest on the same factual allegations, would be decided under the same legal standards as one another, and authorize the same form of relief" and therefore,"[a]s a matter of judicial economy, courts should dismiss such duplicative claims." (internal quotations and citations omitted). / / / 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 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:66 C. RULE 12(C) AND RULE 12(B) MOTIONS ARE DETERMINED UNDER THE SAME STANDARD. A motion under Rule 12(c) is "functionally identical" to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), [t]he Court inquires whether the complaint at issue contains 'sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.'" Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (citting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Courts review a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard used for analyzing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008). D. THE COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE WHEN DETERMINING RULE 12(C) AND RULE 12(B)(6) MOTIONS. When a court evaluates a motion for judgment on the pleadings, it "may consider facts that are contained in materials of which the court may take judicial notice." Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9' Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Heliotrope, the court took judicial notice "that the market was aware of the information contained in news articles submitted by the defendants." Ibid. When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court properly consider facts that "are contained in materials of which the court may take judicial notice." See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Fed. R. Evid. 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of a complaint filed therein. For reasons set forth below, the Court should grant Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. IV. ARGUMENT A. THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF BOTH COMPLAINTS ARE IDENTICAL. The Court is requested herein to take judicial notice that both actions are the same in every material respect. (Fed. R. Evid. 201) I / / 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 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:67 1 The allegations and claims in both actions are premised on the same facts : 2 FACT/ISSUE: 1ST CASE 2ND CASE Plaintiff: Gold Value International Textile same Defendant: Charlotte Russe, Inc. same Copyright Reg No.: VA 1-938-289 for textiles same Infringing Fabric: Women's Top same 3 4 5 6 In sum, the 1st Case and the instant 2rid Case concern the same underlying facts, including the parties, identical claims, the same copyright and the same purportedly infringing fabric. These facts and claims constitute the entire factual basis for the claims in both cases. Both actions allege Defendant Charlotte Russe infringed the same textile copyright purportedly owned by Plaintiff. (See Exhs. 1 and 4; RFJN Exhs. 1 and 4; Haney Decl., ¶¶ 5-8) B. THE COMPLAINTS ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL. A comparison of both complaints evidences that they too are duplicates in every material respect as against defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc., to wit: Page 1, lines 23-28 are identical content. Page 2, lines 1-28 are identical content. Page 3, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 21'd Case 2 corporation company 5 ¶ 8 renumbered ¶ 6 6 ¶ 9 renumbered ¶ 7 18 ¶ 10 renumbered ¶ 8 25 ... ¶ 11 renumbered ¶ 9 Page 4, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 2'"d Case 7 ¶ 12 renumbered ¶ 10 9 ¶ 13 renumbered ¶ 11 11 ¶ 14 renumbered ¶ 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:68 13 / new 11 131 20 1115 renumbered 1114 25 "bearing the label `Charlotte Russe' under RN 101331." /2 omitted 26 ¶ 16 renumbered 1115 Page 5, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 2nd Case 3 1120 renumbered 1116 8 ¶ 21 renumbered 1117 9 1 through "20" 1 through "16" 10 (fi 22 renumbered lj 18 15 1123 renumbered ¶ 19 20 1124 renumbered 41120 22 ¶ 25 renumbered ¶ 21 24 ¶ 26 renumbered ¶ 22 Page 6, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 2nd Case 1 ¶ 27 renumbered 1123 7 ¶ 28 renumbered ¶ 24 8 "hereforeto" (sic) "in Paragraphs 1 through 23" 1 This paragraph does not appear in the 1St case, however it is not a material difference to the 1St case. 2 The 2" case merely omits pleading the RN number associated with Charlotte Russe, Inc. The 2 complain' however, rests an the very same garment as alleged in the P' Case. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:69 9 / new li 253 13 ¶ 29 renumbered ¶ 26 15 "the direct infringing" "the infringing" 15 - 16 conduct "by their authority, ability, and/or control to request, change, suggest. or decline the design featured on the Accused Garment." conduct "and because they had a direct financial interest in the infringing product" 17 ¶ 31 renumbered If 27 21 ¶ 32 renumbered ¶ 28 26 If 33 renumbered ¶ 29 Page 7, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 2" Case 3 ¶ 34 renumbered ¶ 30 5 ¶ 35 renumbered iff 31 10 ¶ 36 renumbered ¶ 32 14 If 37 renumbered ¶ 33 34 ¶ 38 renumbered ¶ 34 Page 8, all lines are identical content with the following exceptions: Line # 1st Case 2nd Case 4 §504(e) §101 et seq. (See Haney Decl at ¶ 7, and both Complaints, RJN Exhs. 1 and 4) The Court should dismiss the 2' Case as it duplicates the 1st Case against Charlotte Russe, Inc. in its entirety. (RFJN Exhs. 1 and 4; Haney Decl. at ¶ 7) The minor changes to the 2" Case, are not a change of facts, nor do they change the theory of liability against defendant nor the recoverable damages. 3 This additional allegation does not add a material fact which otherwise changes the liability of defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:70 Furthermore, the Court should dismiss the 2" Case because it was filed for an improper purpose, namely to avoid the discovery cut-off imposed in the 1st Case. Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Jeong, as much as admitted filing the 2" Case because of the discovery cut-off in the 1st Case. (See Richland Decl. at ¶ 5) The timing of the filing of the 2" Case coupled with the discovery cut-off in the 1st Case and the similarity of the allegations in both actions leads to the inescapable conclusion that the instant 2" Case was filed for an improper purpose V. CONCLUSION The 2" Case does not state a new claim for relief, a glaring fact which is obvious from the comparison analysis evidenced above. The Court should not countenance the filing of the second action which was clearly designed by Plaintiff to "back door" discovery in violation of the court's Scheduling Order and which duplicates the 1st action in every material way. Based on the above showing, law and argument, defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc's motion to dismiss should be granted. DATED: January 23, 2017 HANEY & YOUNG LLP 13y: Steven H. Haney Attorney for Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. 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 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FRCP 12(c); ALTERNATIVELY JOP FRCP 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24 Filed 01/23/17 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:71 STEVEN H. HANEY (SBN 121980) HANEY & YOUNG LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90017 'Telephone:(213) 228-6500 Facsimile: (213) 228-6501 Email: shaney@haneyyoung.com Attorneys for Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTTLE,d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, VS. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-08130-CBM (PLAx) (RELATED CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-00294- CBM) DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP (0; OR itLTERN 12 ATIVELYFOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (FRCP 2(b)(6)) Date: Time: Courtroom: February 28, 2017 10:00 a.m. 8B 1 DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (F.R.C.P. 12(c) ) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:72 DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY I, Steven H. Haney, am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California, and a partner with the law firm of Haney & Young LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. ("Defendant"). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that I have personal knowledge of the below stated facts which are true and correct, and as to those matters based upon my belief, I believe them to be true. If called as witness, I could and would testify competently thereto under oath, as follows: 1. On or about January 13, 2016, Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile, d/b/a Fiesta Fabric ("Plaintiff' or "Gold Value") brought suit against Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. in United States Central District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM- PLA (the "1st Case") by filing a complaint, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "V'. 2. On April 5, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order in the 00294 Action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2". The scheduling order set a discovery deadlines, i.e., it decreed that the non-expert discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2106, and that expert discovery shall be completed by November 15, 2016. 3. On September 20, 2016 the Court extended the non-expert discovery cut-off from 9/20/16 to 10/28/16 Attached hereto as Exhibit "3" is a true and correct copy of the Order Re: Discovery Cut-off 4. On or about November 1, 2016, (the same) Plaintiff filed the complaint that commenced the instant action, United States Central District of California Case No. 2:16- cv-08130 (the "2" Case "), and a true and correct copy of this complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "4". 5. I have reviewed , compared and am familiar with the allegations in the 1st and 2' Case . Both actions involve a purported copyright infringement arising from the use of a certain fabric on a women's top Both actions involve the same Plaintiff, the 2 DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (F.R.C.P. 12(c) ) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:73 same Defendant, and both allege identical claims, concerning the identical copyright for the same classification (textiles) and the same women's top. 6. I have reviewed the exhibits to both complaints and it is apparent that the alleged infringement in both cases concern the same fabric and the same women's top. The duplication of allegations and claims in both actions are summarized as follows: 1St Case 2nd Case Plaintiff : Gold Value International Textile same Defendant : Charlotte Russe, Inc. same Copyright Reg No.: VA 1-938-289 for textiles same Infringing Fabric : Women's Top Same 7. I have reviewed and compared the two complaints and caused the word for word comparison to be created as it appears in the motion to dismiss at pages 6-8. and represent that it a true and accurate document comparison between the First Amended Complaint filed in the 1St Case and the Complaint filed in the 2' Case . 8. Based on that comparison, I aver that the 1st and 2" Cases involve the same parties, and concern identical claims, the same copyright and the identical purportedly infringing fabric. These facts and claims constitute the entire factual basis for the claims in both cases. Both actions claim Defendant infringed the same copyright purportedly owned by Plaintiff. 9. Despite the cases being the same, the Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Related Cases as required. Hence, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases, and a copy of same is attached hereto as Exhibit "5". 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit "6" is a true and correct copy of an Order Re: Transfer issued on or about January 13, 2017. 11. Exhibit "7" is a true and correct copy of the December 27, 2016, letter authored by me, from my firm to Plaintiff's counsel, advising that the filing of the 2nd Case appears to be a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that it was filed 3 DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (F.R.C.P. 12(c) ) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:74 for an improper purpose. Opposing counsel was given the opportunity to dismiss the instant 2" case to avoid this motion, but declined to do so. We requested that opposing counsel contact us to discuss and confer about same, but opposing counsel refused to do so. We continued to attempt to contact opposing counsel with voice mail, email and correspondence. To wit, on January 19, 2017, our firm sent a true and correct copy of the letter attached hereto as Exhibit "8" to opposing counsel, by email and regular mail. On January 20, 2017, an attorney from our firm, Sean M. Cronin, Esq., discussed in detail our firm's intent to file a Rule 12(c) and/or (b)(6) motion against plaintiffs in said cases seeking, without limitation, an order to dismiss the 2nd case. Mr. Cronin spoke with Mr. Jeong and our firm discussed the content of our potential Rule 12 motion, the specific reasons supporting it, and went paragraph-by-paragraph with Mr. Jeong about why the 2nd case was duplicative to the 1st case. Mr. Cronin also invited Mr. Jeong to indicate if there was any indication that the 2' case was not filed as an "end run" around the Court's order pertaining to discovery in the Pt case. Mr. Cronin invited Mr. Jeong to provide a written response to our firm explaining why plaintiff believed that a Rule 12 motion was not appropriate. Mr. Jeong said words to the effect that he would not be providing any further communication to our firm on the said topics or this issue. After a comprehensive discussion with Mr. Cronin, Mr. Jeong stated words to the effect that he disagreed with our firm's viewpoint and that if we wanted to file a Rule 12 motion against his clients, that we should go ahead and do so. On January 23, 2017, our firm then sent to opposing counsel a true and correct copy of the letter attached hereto as Exhibit "9" to opposing counsel, by email and regular mail. Executed this January 23, 2017 at Los Angeles, California. /s/ STEVEN H. HANEY 4 DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. HANEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (F.R.C.P. 12(c) ) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:75 • Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:76 GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation; Plaintiff, VS. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC., a California Corporation; FASHION DIMENSIONS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1 C. YONG JEONG, ESQ. (SBN: 255244) jeong@jeonglikens.com AMY CHOE, ESQ. (SBN: 299870) amy.choe@jeonglikens.com JEONG & LIKENS, L.C. 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2280 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-688-2001 Fax: 213-688-2002 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case Number: 2:16-cv-0295 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND/OR 2. VICARIOUS AND/OR CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiff GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC ("Plaintiff') by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby prays to this honorable Court for relief and remedy based on the following: 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a California-based company engaged in the apparel industry as a textile converter of imported and domestic fabrications. Plaintiff creates, or purchases and obtains, exclusive rights 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:77 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2 to unique two-dimensional graphic artworks for use on textiles and garments, and those textiles and garments are transacted primarily in the fashion industry. Plaintiff owns these designs in exclusivity and makes sales of products bearing these designs for profit. Plaintiffs business is predicated on its ownership of these designs and it spends a considerable amount of time and resources creating and obtaining top-quality, marketable and aesthetically-appealing designs. Customers of Plaintiff, including possibly DOE defendants named herein, take design samples with the understanding and agreement that they will only utilize them to reproduce said designs should they wish to do so, and will not seek to make minor changes to Plaintiffs proprietary work to reproduce the same elsewhere, yet use those designs in furtherance of their business in violation of both their contractual agreement with Plaintiff and Plaintiffs copyrights. No other party is authorized to make sales of product bearing Plaintiffs proprietary designs without express permission from Plaintiff. This action is brought to recover damages for direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement arising out of the misappropriation of Plaintiff s exclusive designs by the Defendants, and each of them. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C., §101 et seq. 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331m 1338(a) and (b). 3. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and 1400(a) in that this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. PARTIES 4. GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC ("Plaintiff') is a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 organized and 61(siing under Trelaws o he State of Callitirriirt "With s principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, at 850 South Maple Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90014. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:78 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSE, INC. ("CHARLOTTE RUSSE") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California and doing business in California., with its principal place of business at 5910 Pacific Center Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant FASHION DIMENSONCS, INC. ("FASHION DIMENSIONS") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California and doing business in California., with its principal place of business at 11275 Missouri Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025. 7. Named Defendants and Does 1-10, may be collectively referred to as "Defendants." 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of Defendants DOES 1 through 3, inclusive, are manufacturers and/or vendors of garments to Defendants, which DOE Defendants have manufactured and/or supplied and are manufacturing and/or supplying garments comprised of fabric printed with Plaintiffs copyrighted design(s) (as hereinafter defined) without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent or have contributed to said infringement. The true names, whether corporate, individual or otherwise, and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 3 are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and therefore, Plaintiff sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of defendants designated as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events alleged herein and the damages caused thereby. 9. Defendants DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, are other parties not yet identified who have infringed Plaintiffs copyrights, have contributed to the infringement of Plaintiff s -copy' ui I avc-ungagerf-i-rrarre-nrm nre rif-thu-wrcurgfal-practirts-wttegett-hrreir&Thelra names, whether corporate, individual or otherwise, and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 4 through 100 are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and therefore, Plaintiff sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:79 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:L complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant hereto each of Defendants acted in concert with each other, was the agent, affiliate, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego, and/or employee of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the scope of such agency, affiliation, alter-ego relationship and/or employment; and actively participated in or subsequently rarified and adopted, or both, each and all of the acts or conducts alleged, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, including without limitation to full knowledge of each and every wrongful conducts and Plaintiff's damages caused therefrom. CLAIMS RELATED TO DESIGN 11. Plaintiff is the owner and author of a two-dimensional artwork under title "FIESTA FABRIC/GROUP 0 1 5-FALL/WfNTER 2013" ("Subject Design"). (Exhibit A). 12. Plaintiff applied for a copyright from the United States Copyright Office for the Subject Design and was granted Registration No. VA 1-938-289 on October 11, 2012. (Exhibit B). 13. Plaintiff formatted the Subject Design for use on textiles, samples the Subject Design and negotiated sales of fabric bearing the Subject Design. 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, without Plaintiff's authorization, Defendants CHARLOTTE RUSSE and FASHION DIMENSIONS purchased, sold, manufactured, caused to be manufactured, imported and/or distributed fabric and/or garments comprised of fabric featuring a design which is identical, or substantially similar to, Subject Design. A true and correct copy of one such garment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Said garments include, but are not limited to, garments sold by CHARLOTTE RUSSE bearing the label "Charlotte Russe" under RN 101331. 5, A-tvariott. d and Lontrolled rotail stores, and-Tach, Plaintiff's investigation revealed that garments comprised of fabric bearing Subject Design were being offered for sale, garments which were manufactured and/or imported under the direction of the Defendants, and each of them. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:80 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID 16. None of the aforementioned transactions were authorized by Plaintiff, and all were in violation of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Copyright Infringement - Against all Defendants, and Each) 17. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive, of this Complaint. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, accessed Subject Design through, without limitation, the following: (a) access to Plaintiffs design library; (b) access to authorized or unauthorized reproductions in the possession of other vendors and/or DOE Defendants; and (c) access to Plaintiffs strike-offs, swatches, paper CADs and samples. 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, infringed Plaintiff's copyright by importing, creating, making and/or developing directly infringing and/or derivative works from the Subject Design and by importing, producing, distributing and/or selling infringing garments through a nationwide network of retail stores, catalogues, and online websites. 20. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages to its business in an amount to be established at trial. 21. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages to its business in an amount to be established at trial. 22. Due to Defendants' acts of copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would not otherwise have realized but for their infringement of Subject Design. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of Deferrd am' traltrectly oiLtribtrMIT1-c-ro-Defenclunts' 1 Subject Design in an amount to be established at trial. // // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.3 26 27 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:81 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:E SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Vicarious and/or Contributory Copyright Infringement - Against All Defendants) 23. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, of this Complaint. 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knowingly induced, participated in, aided and abetted in and resultantly profited from the illegal reproduction, importation, purchase, distribution and/or sales of product featuring the Subject Design as alleged herein above. 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are 10 vicariously liable for the infringement alleged herein because they had the right and ability to 11 supervise the infringing conduct and because they had a direct financial interest in the infringing product. 26. By reason of the Defendants', and each of their, acts of contributory and/or vicarious 14 infringement as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages to its business in an amount to established at trial, as well as additional general and special damages in an amount to be established at trial. 27. Due to Defendants' acts of contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would have not otherwise realized bur for their infringement of the Subject Design. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants' profits directly and indirectly attributable to Defendants' infringement of the Subject Design, an amount to be established at trial. 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 Alai st-All-Befendants-- With respect to Each Claim for Relief: 1. That Defendants, their agents and servants be enjoined from infringing Plaintiff's copyright in any manner; 6 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:- 2. That Plaintiff be awarded all profits of Defendants plus all losses of Plaintiff, the exact sum to be proven at time of trial, or, if elected before final judgment, statutory damages as available under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; 3. That Plaintiff be awarded its attorneys' fees as available under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.0 § 101 et seq.; 4. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest as allowed by law; 5. That Plaintiff be awarded costs of litigation; and 6. That Plaintiff be awarded such further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Dated: January 13, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Is! C. Yong Jeong C. Yong Jeong, Esq. Amy Choe, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gold Value International Textile, d/b/a Fiesta Fabric 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:83 . . . Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:84 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 16-0294-CBM(PLAx) 1 APRIL 5, 2016 Title GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, INC., v. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC., ET AL., Present: The Honorable CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Yolanda Skipper Maria Bustillos Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Amy Choe Ginam Lee Proceedings: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The case is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with the parties, the Court will set the following dates: Documents to be provided no later than April 19, 2016. Non-Expert discovery shall be completed on or before September 30, 2016. Expert discovery shall be completed on or before October 30, 2016. Settlement conference shall be held on or before November 15, 2016. Last day for hearings on Motions shall be set for oral argument on or before January 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Pre Trial Conference is set on March 27, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. Jury Trial is set on May 9, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.(est. 4-5 days). ADR-1 Form shall be filed on or before April 12, 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED. _:_16_ CV- 9 0 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk YS Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 10 of 39 Page ID #:85 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 11 of 39 Page ID #:86 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 18 20 29 23 24 25 26 27 28 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation Plaintiff, VS. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC., a California Corporation; URBAN MIX, INC. DBA GIRL'S GENERATION; FASHION DIMENSIONS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLAx ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY CUT- OFF 1311 Case 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA Document 32 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:130 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation between Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile and Defendants Charlotte Russe, Inc. and Urban Mix, Inc., the non-expert discovery shall be completed on or before October 28, 2016 and settlement conference shall be held with the panel mediator on or before October 18, 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 20, 2016 Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY CUT-OFF Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 12 of 39 Page ID #:87 . Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 13 of 39 Page ID #:88 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1 C. YONG JEONG, ESQ. (SBN: 255244) jeong@jeonglikens.com AMY CHOE, ESQ. (SBN: 299870) amy. choe@j eonglikens . corn JEONG & LIKENS, L.C. 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2280 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-688-2001 Fax: 213-688-2002 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation; Plaintiff, VS. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. Plaintiff GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC ("Plaintiff') by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby prays to this honorable Court for relief and remedy following- INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a California-based company engaged in the apparel industry as a textile converter of imported and domestic fabrications. Plaintiff creates, or purchases and obtains, exclusive rights 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.") 26 27 28 Case Number: 2:16-cv-8130 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 2. VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 3. CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 14 of 39 Page ID #:89 _c.$rpor'ati ou t liTMIN r i r place of business in the County of Los Angeles, at 850 South Maple Ave. Los Angeles, CA Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2 to unique two-dimensional graphic artworks for use on textiles and garments, and those textiles and garments are transacted primarily in the fashion industry. Plaintiff owns these designs in exclusivity and makes sales of products bearing these designs for profit. Plaintiff's business is predicated on its ownership of these designs and it spends a considerable amount of time and resources creating and obtaining top-quality, marketable and aesthetically-appealing designs. Customers of Plaintiff, including possibly DOE defendants named herein, take design samples with the understanding and agreement that they will only utilize Plaintiff to reproduce said designs should they wish to do so, and will not seek to make minor changes to Plaintiff's proprietary work to reproduce the same elsewhere, yet use those designs in furtherance of their business in violation of both their contractual agreement with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's copyrights. No other party is authorized to make sales of product bearing Plaintiff's proprietary designs without express permission from Plaintiff. This action is brought to recover damages for direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement arising out of the misappropriation of Plaintiff's exclusive designs by the Defendants, and each of them. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and (b). 3. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a) in that this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. PARTIES 4. GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC ("Plaintiff') is a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 90014. 27 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 15 of 39 Page ID #:90 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:3 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSE, INC. ("CHARLOTTE RUSSE"), is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a company organized and existing under the laws of California and doing business in California, with its principal place of business at 5910 Pacific Center Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121. Named Defendants, and Does 1-10, may be collectively referred to as "Defendants." Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of Defendants Does 1 through 3, inclusive, are manufacturers and/or vendors of garments to Defendant, which DOE Defendants have manufactured and/or supplied and are manufacturing and/or supplying garments comprised of fabric printed with Plaintiff's copyrighted design(s) (as hereinafter defined) without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent or have contributed to said infringement. The true names, whether corporate, individual or otherwise, and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 3 are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and therefore, Plaintiff sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of defendants designated as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events alleged herein and the damages caused thereby. Defendants DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, are other parties not yet identified who have infringed Plaintiffs copyrights, have contributed to the infringement of Plaintiff's copyrights, or have engaged in one or more of the wrongful practices alleged herein. The true names, whether corporate, individual or otherwise, and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 4 through 10 are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and therefore, Plaintiff sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a tiftiffislirrormed and believes and thereupon alleges that at allfirraElint-hereto each of Defendants acted in concert with each other, was the agent, affiliate, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego, and/or employee of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the scope of such agency, affiliation, alter-ego relationship and/or 3 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 16 of 39 Page ID #:91 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4 1 2 3 4 employment; and actively participated in or subsequently rarified and adopted, or both, each and all of the acts or conducts alleged, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, including without limitation to full knowledge of each and every wrongful conducts and Plaintiffs damages caused therefrom. 5 6 CLAIMS RELATED TO DESIGN 10. Plaintiff is the owner and author of a two-dimensional artwork under title "FIESTA FABRIC/GROUP 0 1 5-FALL/WfNTER 2013" ("Subject Design"). (Exhibit A). 11. Plaintiff applied for a copyright from the United States Copyright Office for the Subject Design and was granted Registration No. VA 1-938-289 on October 11, 2012. (Exhibit B). 12. Plaintiff formatted the Subject Design for use on textiles, samples the Subject Design and negotiated sales of fabric bearing the Subject Design. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, each of them, had access to the Subject Designs, including without limitation, through: (a) access to Plaintiffs showroom and/or design library; (b) access to illegally distributed copies of the Subject Designs by third-party vendors and/or DOE Defendants, including without limitation international and/or overseas converters and printing mills; (c) access to Plaintiff's strike-offs and samples; and (d) access to garments in the marketplace manufactured with lawfully printed fabric bearing the Subject Designs. 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, without Plaintiffs authorization, Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE purchased, sold, marketed, advertised, manufactured, caused to be manufactured, imported and/or distributed fabric and/or garments comprised of fabric featuring a design which is identical, or substantially similar to, the Subject Design. A true and correct copy of such a garment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Said garments ludnUare_naLlimita tazaratent JSSE, 26 15. At various times Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE owned and controlled offline and/or 27 online retail stores, and each, Plaintiffs investigation revealed that garments comprised of 28 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 17 of 39 Page ID #:92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5 fabric bearing the Subject Design were being offered for sale, garments which were manufactured and/or imported under the direction of the Defendants, and each of them. 16. None of the aforementioned transactions were authorized by Plaintiff, and all were in violation of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Copyright Infringement - Against all Defendants, and Each) 17. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive, of this Complaint. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, accessed the Subject Design through, without limitation, the following: (a) access to Plaintiff's design library; (b) access to authorized or unauthorized reproductions in the possession of other vendors and/or DOE Defendants; and (c) access to Plaintiff's strike-offs, swatches, paper CADs and samples. 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, infringed Plaintiff's copyright by importing, creating, marketing, advertising, making, and/or developing directly infringing and/or derivative works from the Subject Design and by importing, producing, distributing and/or selling infringing garments through a nationwide network of retail stores, catalogues, and online websites. 20. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages to its business in an amount to be established at trial. 21. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages to its business in an amount to be established at trial. 22. Due to Defendants' acts of copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of iTi,lgwzflIttriTi.e.d:citr=m-d=i1R41T-.=Fp74fft,ct11(.4.y-would-net-othervvise their infringement of the Subject Design. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants' profits directly and indirectly attributable to Defendants' infringement of the Subject Design in an amount to be established at trial. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 18 of 39 Page ID #:93 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:6 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, have committed acts of infringement alleged herein with actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's rights such that Plaintiff is entitled to a finding of willful infringement. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Vicarious Copyright Infringement - Against All Defendants) 24. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, of this Complaint. 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knowingly induced, participated in, aided and abetted in and resultantly profited from the illegal reproduction, importation, purchase, marketing, advertisement, distribution and/or sales of product featuring the Subject Design as alleged herein above. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are vicariously liable for the infringement alleged herein because they had the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and because they had a direct financial interest in the infringing product. 27. By reason of the Defendants', and each of their, acts of contributory and/or vicarious infringement as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages to its business in an amount to be established at trial, as well as additional general and special damages in an amount to be established at trial. 28. Due to Defendants' acts of contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would have not otherwise realized bur for their infringement of the Subject Design. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants' profits directly and indirectly attributable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o ■ e en an s in ringemen ofThe Subject Design, an amount to be established ai 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, have committed acts of infringement alleged herein with actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's rights such that Plaintiff is entitled to a finding of willful infringement. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 19 of 39 Page ID #:94 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (for Contributory Copyright Infringement- Against All Defendants) 30. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the allegations contained hereforeto, inclusive, of this Complaint. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knowingly induced, caused, materially contributed to, participated in, encourages, aided and abetted in and resultantly profited from the illegal reproduction, importation, purchase, marketing, advertising, distribution and/or sales of product featuring the Subject Design as alleged herein above. 32. By reason of the Defendants', and each of their, acts of contributory copyright infringement as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages to its business in an amount to established at trial, as well as additional general and special damages in an amount to be established at trial. 33. Due to Defendants' acts of contributory copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would have not otherwise realized bur for their infringement of the Subject Design. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants' profits directly and indirectly attributable to Defendants' infringement of the Subject Design, an amount to be established at trial. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, have committed acts of infringement alleged herein with actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's rights such that Plaintiff is entitled to a finding of willful infringement. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants as follows: Against All Defendants With respect to Each Claim for Relief: 1. That Defendants, their agents and servants be enjoined from infringing Plaintiff's copyrights 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 20 of 39 Page ID #:95 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:8 in any manner; 2. That Plaintiff be awarded all profits of Defendants plus all losses of Plaintiff, the exact sum to be proven at time of trial, or, if elected before final judgment, statutory damages as available under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; 3. That Plaintiff be awarded its attorneys' fees as available under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; 4. That Plaintiff be awarded pre judgment interest as allowed by law; 5. That Plaintiff be awarded costs of litigation; and 6. That Plaintiff be awarded such further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Dated: November 1, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/C. Yong Jeong C. Yong Jeong, Esq. Amy Choe, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 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 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 21 of 39 Page ID #:96 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1-1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:9 EXHIBIT A Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 22 of 39 Page ID #:97 . _ • 4:27Z • • . _ • Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 23 of 39 Page ID #:98 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1-1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:11 EXHIBIT B Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 24 of 39 Page ID #:99 cecriamaM-syth,1906-N Document 1-1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:12 This Certificate issued under the seal of the Copyright Office in accordance with title IA United States Code, attests that registration has been made for the work identified below The information on this certificate has been made a part of the Copyright Office records. Register of Copyrights, United States of America Registration Number VA 1-938-289 Effective date of registration: October 11, 2012 Title Title of Work: FIESTA FABRIC/GROUP 0 5-FALL/WINTER 2013 I . 887 2. 927 3. 1073 4. 1206 5. 1219 6. 1226 7. 1229 8. 1332 9. 1334 10. 1339 11. 1340 12. 1342 13, 1348 14. 1349 15. 1350 16. 1351 17. 1353 18. 1354 19, 1357 20, 1366 21. 1367 22. 1368 23. 1369 24. XDB0648 25. FIE-206-67026. FIE-206-992 27. F1E-206-1007 28. FIE-206-1018 29. F1E-206.1019 30. FIE-206-1020 31. FIE-206-1021 32, FIE-206-1022 33, FIE-206- 1023 34. F1E-206-1024 Nature of Work: FABRIC DESIGN Completion / Publication Year of Completion: 2012 Date of 1st Publication: July 1, 2012 ■ Author: FIESTA FABRIC/Gold Value Int'l.Textile Author Created: 2-Dimensional artwork Work made for hire: Yes Anonymous: No Pseudonymous: No Author ■ Author: FIESTA FABRIC/Gold Value Int'I.Textile- Copyright claimant Copyright Claimant: FIESTA FABRIC/Gold Value Infl.Textile Copyright Claimant: FIESTA FABRIC/Gold Value Jnt'l.Textile- 1142 E. 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90021 Certification Name: MORRIS AJNASSIAN Date: July 1, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 25 of 39 Page ID #:100 Case 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 1-1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:13 HIBIT C Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 26 of 39 Page ID #:101 O Li 11J S IG N U P & G E T 1 0% O F F ! SH A R IN G : O F F T re n d y W om en 's C lo t h in g , J u n io rs , S h o e s & D re ss es : C ha rl o tt e R u ss e o / a 0 • I I IC E A R R IV A _ Cl, 2 • I 5 1- ci. 10- Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 27 of 39 Page ID #:102 az up 2 0 0 8 4 CB cr cr 3 ,:m ilr,; 1 4 = (ti D M [: iI II II M I! II Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 28 of 39 Page ID #:103 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 29 of 39 Page ID #:104 2:16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 19 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:51 STEVEN H. HANEY (SBN 121980) HANEY & YOUNG LLP 1055 West Seventh Street. Suite 1950 Los Angeles. California 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-6500 Facsiinile: (213) 228-6501 shaiwy@haneyyoung.com Attorneys for Defendant CHARLOTT.E RUSSE, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-08130-GIW-AS ) ) INC.'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) [Central District L.R. 83-1.31 ) CHARLO1 IL RUSSE, INC., a California ) Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, ) inclusive, Defendant. ) ) Complaint Filed: 11/1/2016 TO: THIS HONORABLE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Pursuant to Central District Local Rule 83-1.3, Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc., hereby notices the court and counsel of the following previously filed and currently pending case filed by plaintiff against defendant, which concerns a determination of "substantially related or similar questions of law" and concerns the "same" copyright. Gola Virtue International Textile. Elba Fiesta Fabric v. charlotte Ku use, Inc.. et. al Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM (PLA) The related case ("00294 Action") has a pending trial date of June 6, 2017. NnTICF RH ATFh_CASI: Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE,d/h./a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation, DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 30 of 39 Page ID #:105 Case :16-cv-08130-GW-AS Document 19 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:52 Good cause exists for this court to relate the instant action ("08130 Action") filed by Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile ("Gold Value") against defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc., to the earlier ("00294 Action") currently pending in this district court. The instant case "08130" duplicates the facts and allegations set forth in the earlier "00294 Action" filed in early 2016 by Plaintiff Gold Value against Charlotte Russe. The duplication of allegations and claims in both actions are summarized as follows: 2:16- cv-00294-CBM-PLA 2:16-ev-08130-MRW Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile same Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc same Copyright Reg No VA 1-938-289 for textiles same Infringing Fabric Women's Top same A review of the complaint filed in this matter establishes that the instant matter concerns the same parties, identical claims, the same copyright, and the identical purportedly infringing fabric, which constitutes the entire factual basis for the claims in both this and the earlier case. Both actions claim defendant violated the same copyright purportedly owned by plaintiff. Good cause and local rules require that this matter may belated to the earlier action. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 88-1.3.1(b),(d). Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. hereby respectfully requests that this court relate the instant case to the earlier filed case, number 2 : 16- ev-00294-CBM-PLA. Dated: December 28, 2016 Respectfully submitted, HANEY & YOUNG LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Ry:- .'`St STEVEN I I. I iANIA Attorney l'or klendant C11 A IZIJ YITI: RI !SSE, INC. 2 NOTIFF OF LI:1111CAST ? -; Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 31 of 39 Page ID #:106 EXHIBIT'6' Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 32 of 39 Page ID #:107 Cae 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 21. Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Gold Value International Textile CASE NUMBER 2:16-cv-08130 GW(ASx) PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S). V. Charlotte Russe, Inc et al ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 16-05 (RELATED CASES) CONSENT I hereby consent to the transfer of the above-entitled case to my calendar, pursuant to General Order 16-05. January 12, 2017 Consuelo B. Marshal I. Date United States District Judge DECLINATION I hereby decline to transfer the above-entitled case to my calendar for the reasons set forth: Date United States District Judge REASON FOR TRANSFER AS INDICATED BY COUNSEL Case 2:16-cv-00294 CBM(PLAx) and the present case: A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings or events; or B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or D. Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges (applicable only on civil forfeiture action). --NOTICE-TO-COUNSEI FROM-CF ER Pursuant to the above transfer, any discovery matters that are or may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are hereby transferred from Magistrate Judge Sagar to Magistrate Judge Abrams On all documents subsequently filed in this case, please substitute the initials CBM(PLAx) after the case number in place of the initials of the prior judge, so that the case number will read 2:16-cv-08130 CBM(PLAx) This is very important because the documents are routed to the assigned judges by means of these initials CC: Previous Judge Statistics Clerk CV-34 (10/16) ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 16-05 (Related Cases) Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 33 of 39 Page ID #:108 EXHIBIT "7" Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 34 of 39 Page ID #:109 HANEY & YOUNG LLP Attorneys 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 Steven Haney, Esq. Tel: (213) 228-6500 Fax: (213) 228-6501 December 27, 2016 Via Email and Facsimile C. Yong Jeong Jeong & Likens, L.C. 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 2280 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Gold Value International Textile v. Charlotte Russe, Case No. 2:16-cv-00294 Dear Mr. Jeong: Please allow this letter to serve as notice that we will be filing an ex parte application with the Court at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 28, 2016. The ex parte application will be filed in Dept. 8B of the 1st Street Courthouse located at 350 W. 1' Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall presiding. In our ex parte application, we will seek an extension of the briefing schedule on the Motion for Summary Judgment which you filed on December 20, 2016, in the midst of the holiday season. Because of your decision to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the midst of the holiday season, you have created certain conflicts in the schedules in the attorneys who will need to oppose your motion. Additionally, I have recently substituted in to this case, and I am in the midst of a four (4) month jury trial in Dept. S30 of the San Bernardino Court in the matter entitled Kincaid v. Wildwood Canyon Villa, LLC, Case No. CIVDS1112948, the Honorable Brian McCarville presiding. As a result of the conflicts created with the holidays, attorneys' vacations and my trial calendar, an extension of the schedule will be required. Finally, we are also in the midst of filing a Notice of Related Case, which you inexplicably failed to file when you filed a Complaint against my client, Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. in Case No. 2:16-cv-08130-MRW. Based on my review of your Complaints, both actions include the same Plaintiff, the same Defendant, the same copyright, the same fabric and blouse, and the same exact claim that is already pending in Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA. As a result, it appears to me that you are attempting to obtain "through the back door" the discovery that you failed to obtain during the course of Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA. Because such conduct would constitute a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, I sincerely hope for your sake that my concern in this regard is not well founded. I suggest that you dismiss the Complaint against Charlotte Russe in Case No. 2:16-cv-08130-MRW now, before we have to bring your conduct to the attention of Judge Marshall Case No. 2:16-cv-00294- CBM-PLA, and as well as to potentially pursue you and law firm for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. Please let me know at your n earliest convenience whether you intend to oppose our application for an extension of the briefing schedule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Very truly yours, Steven H. Haney SHH/fl Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 35 of 39 Page ID #:110 EXHIBIT "8" Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 36 of 39 Page ID #:111 HANEY & YOUNG LLP Attorneys 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 Tel: (213) 228-6500 Fax: (213) 228-6501 Steven Haney, Esq. January 19, 2016 Via Email and Facsimile C. Yong Jeong Amy Choe Jeong & Likens, L.C. 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 2280 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Gold Value Inter '1 Textile v. Charlotte Russe, Case No. 2:16-cv-00294 Gold Value Inter '1 Textile v. Charlotte Russe, Case No. 2:16-cv-08130 Dear Mr. Jeong and Ms. Choe: This letter follows up on my voice mail today requesting that you telephone me to discuss the above-cited cases which recently were ordered transferred pursuant to General Order 16-05 (Related Cases). I have not received a call back from you. We are requesting that you contact us to discuss the prospects of our filing of a motion against your client pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and/or (c) which seeks to dismiss the -08130 case, on the grounds that said actions are the essentially the same, as they include the same Plaintiff, the same Defendant, the same copyright, the same fabric and blouse, and the same exact claim that is already pending in Case No. 2:16- cv-00294-CBM-PLA. We are attempting to avoid law and motion on this matter and the proper course of action to do so would be for you to dismiss this second action. Please email us at scronin(iPhaneyyoung.com with cc to shancy@haneyyoung.com and gyoungrdthaneyyoung.com one of the following dates that you are prepared to have a comprehensive discussion with me, in order to attempt to find a resolution which would vitiate the need for a hearing on Rule 12 motion: January 20, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.; January 23, 2017 at any starting time from Noon to 3:00 p.m.; January 24, 2017. Thank you. Very truly yours, Sean M. Cronin SHH/fl Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 37 of 39 Page ID #:112 EXHIBIT "9" Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 38 of 39 Page ID #:113 HANEY & YOUNG LLP Attorneys 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 Tel: (213) 228-6500 Fax: (213) 228-6501 Steven Haney, Esq. January 23, 2017 Via Email and Facsimile C. Yong Jeong Amy Choe Jeong & Likens, L.C. 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 2280 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Gold Value Inter'l Textile v. Charlotte Russe, Case No. 2:16-cv-00294 Gold Value Inter'l Textile v. Charlotte Russe, Case No. 2:16-cv-08130 Dear Mr. Jeong and Ms. Choe: This letter follows up on the discussion between our respective offices, that took place on January 20, 2016, pertaining to the above-cited cases, which recently were ordered transferred pursuant to General Order 16-05 (Related Cases). On January 20, 2016, after many weeks of requesting discussions with you about the fact that said actions are the essentially the same, Sean M. Cronin, Esq., from our office was able to speak at length with Mr. Jeong from your office. During this conversation, we again informed you of our position that the second case above is duplicative of the first, and includes the same Plaintiff, the same Defendant, the same copyright, the same fabric and blouse, and the same exact claim that is already pending in Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA. Our office further explained specific reasons supporting why our client is entitled to file a Rule 12 Motion which seeks, without limitation, a dismissal of the second case. During this conversation, Mr. Cronin went through specific paragraphs of the operative complaints and how they were verbatim to the second complaint. We discussed in detail the purported copyright infringement alleged in both actions and the purported facts supporting the claims in both actions. In response, Mr. Jeong said words to the effect that he disagreed with our contention and that if we wanted to file a Rule 12 motion, we should do so. Accordingly, we believe we are at an impasse on this issue. We welcome any further communication from you on this issue about the possible resolution of this matter including any communication in person at our office at a time of your convenience on the week of January 23, 2017. Thank you. Very truly yours, Steven H. Haney Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-2 Filed 01/23/17 Page 39 of 39 Page ID #:114 STEVEN H. HANEY fSBN 121980) HANEY & YOUNG LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-6500 Facsimile: (213) 228-6501 Email: shaney@haneyyoung.com GOLD VALUE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE,d/b/a FIESTA FABRIC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, VS. CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-08130-CBM (PLAx) (RE BM) LATED CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-00294- C DECLARATION OF FELIPA R. RICHLAND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP 12(c))_,. OR dkLTERNAT IVELY, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (FRCP 2(b)(6)) Date: February 28, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 8B Attorneys for Defendant CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 DECLARATION OF FELIPA RICHLAND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP 12(c)), OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FRCP 12(b)(6) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:115 DECLARATION OF FELIPA R. RICHLAND I, Felipa R. Richland, am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California, the Central and Southern District Courts, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that I have personal knowledge of the below stated facts which are true and correct, and as to those matters based upon my belief, I believe them to be true. If called as witness, I could and would testify competently thereto under oath, as follows: 1. I am familiar with and have read the pleadings in United States Central District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00294-CBM-PLA (the "1st Case ) which commenced on January 13, 2016, when Plaintiff Gold Value International Textile, d/b/a Fiesta Fabric ("Plaintiff' or "Gold Value") brought suit against Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. ("Defendant") and others. 2. I am familiar with and have read the pleadings in United States Central District of California Case No. 2:16-cv-08130 (the "2nd Case") which commenced on November 1, 2016, filed by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. . 3. On November 3, 2016, I was provided a courtesy copy of the 2nd Case. Upon review I telephoned plaintiffs counsel Mr. Jeong and inquired why he filed a duplicate case concerning the same copyright, same fabric with an already pending case against the same defendant. His response was somewhat intelligible to me, and perhaps it was because he had me on a speaker phone. I then querried him as to why he did not simply amend the complaint, to which he replied condescendingly. "Don't you know there is already a discovery cut-off." 4. Sometime thereafter I conducted a more thorough review of the complaint in the 211d Case and compared it to the First Amended Complaint in the 1st Case and found no new facts or allegations that were materially different that those already plead in the first action. 2 DECLARATION OF FELIPA RICHLAND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP 12(c)), OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FRCP 12(b)(6) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:116 5. Based on the reason Mr. Jeong gave me during the telephone conversation together with the undeniable identical pleading in both cases, and the negligible differences, I believe the 2nd Case was filed against Charlotte Russe, Inc. for the improper purpose of conducting discovery relevant to the Pt case, beyond the discovery cut-off date. Executed on January 23, 2017 at Westlake Village, California. /s/ FELIPA R. RICHLAND 3 DECLARATION OF FELIPA RICHLAND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP 12(c)), OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FRCP 12(b)(6) 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 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-3 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:117 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-4 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:118 Case 2:16-cv-08130-CBM-PLA Document 24-4 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:119