Malibu Textiles, Inc., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Label Lane International, Inc., a California Corporation; Entry, Inc., DBA ALT B., a California Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Malibu Textiles, Inc., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., a New York limited partnership, Defendant-Appellee. MALIBU TEXTILES, INC., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., a New York limited partnership, Defendant-Appellant.
and Submitted January 7, 2019 Pasadena, California
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge,
Presiding D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-04054-R-MAN, 2:14-cv-01018-R-E,
Stephen Doniger (argued), Frank Gregory Casella, and Scott A.
Burroughs, Doniger/Burroughs APC, Venice, California, for
J. Gauger (argued) and Staci Jennifer Riordan, Nixon Peabody
LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Paul J. Watford, Circuit
Judges, and Jack Zouhary, [*] District Judge.
panel reversed the district court's dismissal of two
copyright infringement actions, dismissed a cross-appeal
regarding attorney fees as moot, and remanded.
Textiles claimed that defendants infringed its copyrights for
two floral lace designs. The panel held that, on remand
following prior appeal, Malibu sufficiently alleged ownership
of valid, registered copyrights. Malibu also successfully
pled striking similarity between its designs and
defendants' designs. The panel further held that the
district court abused its discretion in denying Malibu leave
to amend its allegations of access for a theory of
panel dismissed as moot one defendant's cross-appeal from
the district court's denial of its motion for attorney
ZOUHARY, DISTRICT JUDGE.
years ago, Plaintiff-Appellant Malibu Textiles filed these
copyright infringement lawsuits against Defendants-Appellees
Label Lane International, Entry, and H&M Hennes &
Mauritz (collectively, "Defendants"), accusing them
of illegally copying Malibu's lace designs. And for five
years, these cases have languished at the pleading stage. The
cases are now before this Court for a second time, after the
district court again denied leave to amend and dismissed with
prejudice. We again reverse and remand.
2014, Malibu sued Defendants for copyright infringement.
Malibu alleges it owns copyrights for two lace designs,
consisting of flowers, vines, leaves, and other elements
arranged in a pattern. Malibu refers to these two designs
collectively as the Subject Work and alleges Defendants
infringed on both.
first appeal came after the district court dismissed the
cases with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This Court
reversed, stating that "[d]ismissal with prejudice is
appropriate only if the complaint 'could not be saved by
any amendment.'" Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Label
Lane Int'l, Inc., 668 Fed.Appx. 803, 803 (9th Cir.
2016) (quoting Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music
Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008));
Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz,
L.P., 668 Fed.Appx. 800, 801 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).
This Court concluded that Malibu could fix its Complaints by
adding more allegations of similarity between the ...