Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:82
`
`KELLY M. KLAUS (State Bar No. 161091)
`kelly.klaus@mto.com
`JOHN L. SCHWAB (State Bar No. 301386)
`john.schwab@mto.com
`MICA L. MOORE (State Bar No. 321473)
`mica.moore@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`Attorneys for Netflix, Inc.
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED
`UNDER SEAL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`HOLLYWOOD INNOVATIONS
`GROUP LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, ZIP CINEMA CO. LTD.,
`a South Korean Corporation, KAKAO
`ENTERTAINMENT CORP., a South
`Korean Corporation, PERSPECTIVE
`PICTURES CO. LTD, a South Korean
`Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-9423
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`COMPLAINT
`Judge: Hon. André Birotte Jr.
`Date: March 4, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Ctrm: 7B
`Filed Concurrently: [1] Declaration of
`John L. Schwab; [2] Declaration of
`Kyo-Hwa Chung; [3] [Proposed] Order;
`[4] Request for Judicial Notice; [5]
`Application for Leave to File Under
`Seal
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:83
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Korean Producers Acquire The Rights To Produce #Saraitda
`And Distribute It Throughout The World ............................................... 3
`Netflix Acquires The Rights To Translate And Distribute
`#Saraitda ................................................................................................. 5
`Plaintiff Acquires The Rights To Produce An Original English-
`Language Motion Picture: Alone ............................................................ 5
`Plaintiff Demands Netflix “Cease And Desist The Dubbing” of
`#Saraitda ................................................................................................. 6
`Plaintiff Sues Netflix, Zip, Perspective And Kakao
`Entertainment .......................................................................................... 6
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Does
`Not, and Cannot, Allege That It Owns The Exclusive Right To
`Translate #Saraitda. ................................................................................ 7
`1.
`Plaintiff Does Not And Cannot Allege Ownership of an
`Infringed Right .............................................................................. 8
`(a)
`Plaintiff Does Not Allege Ownership Of The Right
`To Translate #Saraitda ........................................................ 8
`Plaintiff Cannot Plead Ownership Of The Right To
`Translate #Saraitda Because, Under Korean Law,
`Naylor Conveyed That Right To Zip/Perspective .............. 8
`Plaintiff Cannot Plead That Naylor Reserved The
`Right to Translate #Saraitda ............................................. 10
`Plaintiff’s Claim of Rights In The Devour Screenplay
`Does Not Give It Standing To Allege Infringement in the
`Translation of #Saraitda ............................................................. 12
`If The Case Is Not Dismissed Under Rule 12(b)(6), The Court
`Should Dismiss It Under The Doctrine of Forum Non
`Conveniens. ........................................................................................... 14
`1.
`The Republic of Korea Is An Adequate Alternate Forum .......... 15
`2.
`The Balance of Private and Public Interest Favors
`Dismissal. .................................................................................... 16
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:84
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`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
`
`
`Page
`Private factors. .................................................................. 16
`(a)
`Public factors. ................................................................... 17
`(b)
`Dismissal Is Also Warranted Because Plaintiff Failed to Join
`Indispensable Parties. ............................................................................ 19
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 21
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:85
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`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
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Brown v. Elec. Arts Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 7
`Cabell v. Zorro Prods. Inc.,
`No. 5:15-cv-00771-EJD, 2017 WL 2335597 (N.D. Cal May 30,
`2017) ..................................................................................................................... 16
`Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`656 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 14
`Cheng v. Boeing Co.,
`708 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 16
`Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Ltd.,
`918 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 16
`Creative Tech. Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte. Ltd.,
`61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 16
`Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist.,
`276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 19
`de Fontbrune v. Wofsy,
`838 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................. 9
`DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC,
`870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 7
`Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen,
`743 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 18
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`564 U.S. 915 (2011) ............................................................................................... 2
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ................................................................................. 14, 16, 18
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:86
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`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
`
`
`Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp.,
`236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................ 14, 15, 16, 17
`Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
`795 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 7
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ............................................................................. 2, 14, 17, 18
`Pizzorno v. Draper,
`No. 17-00182-AB, 2017 WL 4712071 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) ......................... 14
`Shields v. Barrow,
`58 U.S. 130 (1854) ................................................................................................. 3
`Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,
`549 U.S. 422 (2007) ............................................................................................. 14
`Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 15
`UMG Recordings Inc. v. Augusto,
`628 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 7
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 3
`Wales Indus. Inc. v. Hasbro Bradley Inc.,
`612 F. Supp. 510 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ....................................................................... 20
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. 501(b) .......................................................................................................... 7
`STATE STATUTES
`U.C.C. Article II ........................................................................................................ 15
`FEDERAL RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................... 3, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:87
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) ......................................................................................... 2, 19
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) ............................................................................................ 19, 20
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) ........................................................................................ 2, 19, 21
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 ...................................................................................................... 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(C) ........................................................................................ 17
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12.02 (2021) .............................................................. 12, 13
`3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12.03 (2021) .............................................................. 19, 20
`5 Nimmer on Copyright § 17.01 (2021) .................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:88
`
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff claims the right to produce and distribute an original English-
`language motion picture based on a screenplay titled Devour. Compl. ¶ 3. And
`Plaintiff did just that. After its film failed, Plaintiff sued Netflix for copyright
`infringement. But the film Netflix released was not an original English-language
`motion picture based on Devour. It was an original Korean-language movie based
`on the screenplay called #Saraitda, that is also available dubbed, i.e., translated into
`other languages. Plaintiff does not allege it has any rights to control the translation
`of the Korean-language movie. Plaintiff cannot make that allegation, because the
`contracts that the Complaint repeatedly references—but conspicuously fails to
`attach—make it clear that Plaintiff has no such rights. By contrast, Netflix has the
`right to distribute the Korean-language film in “all languages.” Because Plaintiff
`does not have an exclusive right that it claims has been infringed, Plaintiff’s
`copyright claim must be dismissed.
`Plaintiff’s claim turns on the rights conveyed in a contract that neither Netflix
`nor Plaintiff is a party to. Defendants Zip Cinema and Perspective Pictures, movie
`production companies based in South Korea (jointly, the “Korean Producers”),
`obtained the rights to make #Saraitda from Devour’s author, Matt Naylor. The
`agreement between Naylor and the Korean Producers (the “Naylor/Zip Agreement”)
`is explicitly governed by Korean law, which provides that, unless the parties
`expressly stipulate otherwise, the right to “exploit [an author’s] work by means of
`cinematization” includes the right “to exploit the translation of a cinematographic
`work in the same manner as the cinematographic work.” See Declaration of Kyo-
`Hwa (Liz) Chung In Support of Netflix, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Chung Decl.”)
`Ex A at 1–2 (emphasis added). The Naylor/Zip Agreement does not reverse that
`presumption. And that requires that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with
`prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:89
`
`
`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
`
`
`There are two additional reasons for dismissal. First, this is an appropriate
`case for exercise of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That doctrine calls for
`the Court to balance private interest factors “affecting the convenience of the
`litigants,” and public interest factors “affecting the convenience of the forum” to
`determine whether dismissal is warranted. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
`235, 241 (1981). Both sets of factors favor litigating this case, if at all, in Korea
`rather than the United States. Three out of the four Defendants are Korean entities
`who have not appeared, have not been served, and may well not be subject to this
`Court’s jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
`U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (no specific jurisdiction over foreign corporation unless
`“activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State” underlies the
`controversy in suit; no general jurisdiction unless “affiliations with the State are so
`‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum
`State”).
`All of the Defendants, including Netflix, trace their rights in #Saraitda to the
`Naylor/Zip Agreement, which is expressly subject to Korean law and which
`provides for exclusive jurisdiction of disputes in Korean courts. Key witnesses and
`documents—all beyond this Court’s subpoena power—are located in Korea. And
`Netflix will be severely prejudiced if it has to defend this case without access to that
`evidence. Plaintiff no doubt would prefer to litigate in the United States, but the
`inconvenience to the legal process and all other parties is “out of all proportion to
`plaintiff’s convenience,” making this an appropriate case for forum non conveniens.
`Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241.
`Alternatively, the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to join necessary
`and indispensable parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7); 19(b). Those absent parties
`are the Korean Producers, whom Plaintiff has named but not served; and another
`Korean entity, which licensed the rights to Netflix but is not named as a defendant
`here. Any final decision in this case would “affect[] [those absent parties’]
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:90
`
`
`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
`
`
`interest[s],” i.e., their contractual rights; and would “leav[e] the controversy in such
`a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and
`good conscience.” Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. 130, 139 (1854).
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The Korean Producers Acquire The Rights To Produce #Saraitda
`And Distribute It Throughout The World
`
`Matt Naylor is the author of the Devour screenplay. Compl. ¶ 13.1 Devour is
`a zombie-apocalypse story that describes “a young man’s struggle for survival and
`the resulting mayhem as he is forced to self-isolate in his urban apartment during the
`outbreak of a global viral pandemic.” Id.
`In July 2018, Naylor and the Korean Producers entered into the “Naylor/Zip
`Agreement.” Id. ¶ 15; RJN Ex. B. As Plaintiff alleges, the Agreement gave the
`Korean Producers the right “to produce … a ‘single, feature-length motion picture in
`the Korean language … based on the [Devour] [s]cript,’” i.e., #Saraitda. Compl.
`¶ 15; RJN Ex. B § 1. But the Naylor/Zip Agreement did much more than that. A
`number of additional provisions fatally undermine Plaintiff’s claim in this case.
`First, the Naylor/Zip Agreement
`
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 1.
`
`
`
`
`1 The facts are taken from the Complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations and the
`documents of which the Court may and should take judicial notice. As explained in
`Netflix’s concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), the Complaint
`incorporates by reference several agreements that form the basis for each side’s
`chain of title, in addition to Plaintiff’s initial demand letter. Because the Complaint
`references and relies on these documents, and their authenticity is not subject to
`dispute, this Court may review the documents in their entirety and “assume that
`[their] contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”
`United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); Knievel v. ESPN, 393
`F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:91
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Second, while the Naylor/Zip Agreement reserved to Naylor
` the Agreement further provided
`
`
`that
`
`§ 1(a). In other words,
`
`
`Third, the parties agreed that Naylor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`
`
`
`did not concern #Saraitda.
`
`
` Id. This reservation of a right by Naylor
`
`
`
`
` E.g., id. §§ 1, 3.
`
`
`
` As discussed below, that is the right
`Naylor conveyed to Plaintiff’s predecessor and that Plaintiff fully exercised when it
`created its original English-language motion picture based on Devour.
`Fourth, the Naylor/Zip Agreement expressly provides that its terms will be
` Id. § 18.
`As discussed below, the controlling Korean law on the scope of Naylor’s rights
`grant is a reason the Complaint fails as a matter of law.
`Notably, Plaintiff did not attach to its Complaint the Naylor/Zip Agreement or
`any of the other agreements that the Complaint relies on and references. Netflix has
`attached the various agreements to its RJN.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 11 of 28 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
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`B. Netflix Acquires The Rights To Translate And Distribute #Saraitda
`The Korean Producers licensed #Saraitda to a Korean distributor, Lotte
`Entertainment. Lotte, in turn, licensed the film to Netflix, granting Netflix the rights
`to distribute #Saraitda throughout the
`
` Compl. ¶ 28; see also RJN Ex.
`F at 2. Netflix then translated the film into other languages. Compl. ¶ 32. The
`Korean-language movie, #Saraitda, called #Alive in English, was released on
`Netflix beginning in September 2020. Id.
`Plaintiff Acquires The Rights To Produce An Original English-
`C.
`Language Motion Picture: Alone
`
`Plaintiff alleges that it also acquired rights based on Naylor’s Devour
`screenplay, including the right to produce a new English-language film based on the
`script. Plaintiff first alleges that Naylor and Rabih Aridi entered into an agreement
`as of April 1, 2019 (“Aridi Agreement”). Compl. ¶ 16. The Aridi Agreement,
`which the Court may judicially notice, provided that Naylor granted Aridi
`
`
`
`
` RJN. Ex. C § 1 (emphasis added). The Excluded Rights provision thus
`expressly limited the scope of rights Aridi acquired. Under that provision, Naylor
`did not grant, and Aridi did not acquire,
`
`
`
`
` Id. § 2(a).
`The Complaint alleges that the Aridi Agreement was followed by two
`assignments. First, Aridi assigned to Devour LLC “all of [his] right, title, and
`interest in and to the [Aridi] Agreement.” Compl. ¶ 17. Devour LLC, in turn,
`granted to Plaintiff “‘all right, title, and interest in and to’ an English language
`movie based on the Script[.]” Id. ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` See RJN Ex. D at 3; Ex. E at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:93
`
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiff then produced its own English language film, Alone, based on the
`Devour screenplay. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges Alone was a commercial failure.
`Compl. ¶¶ 35–36.
`Plaintiff Demands Netflix “Cease And Desist The Dubbing” of
`D.
`#Saraitda
`
`On September 18, 2020, shortly after #Alive was released on the Netflix
`platform, Plaintiff sent Netflix a demand letter, Compl. ¶ 38, insisting that Netflix
`“permanently cease and desist the dubbing of [#Saraitda] in any language and the
`distribution of [#Saraitda] in any language other than Korean.” RJN Ex. A at 3.
`Unlike its Complaint, Plaintiff’s demand letter attached the various agreements,
`including the Naylor/Zip Agreement. It is not surprising that Plaintiff would have
`the Naylor/Zip Agreement, given that Aridi, who is Plaintiff’s CEO, negotiated with
`Naylor for rights that were expressly limited by the Naylor/Zip Agreement, and then
`subsequently assigned those rights to Plaintiff.
`Like the Complaint, the demand letter claimed that Plaintiff’s purported rights
`in the Devour screenplay prohibited Netflix from translating #Saraitda into English
`(as #Alive) or any other language. Netflix kept #Alive on its platform.
`Plaintiff Sues Netflix, Zip, Perspective And Kakao Entertainment
`E.
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint on December 6, 2021. Dkt. 1. The Complaint
`purports to state a claim for copyright infringement against Netflix, the Korean
`Producers, and Kakao Entertainment Corp., a Korean company that Plaintiff alleges
`succeeded to Zip Cinema’s interests. Compl. ¶ 10. The Complaint does not allege
`that Zip Cinema or Kakao have any presence in the United States, id. ¶¶ 9–10, and
`only alleges such a presence for Perspective on information and belief, id. ¶ 11.
`Despite acknowledging that Netflix licensed its rights to #Saraitda from the well-
`known Korean conglomerate Lotte Entertainment, see id. ¶ 28, Plaintiff did not
`name Lotte as a Defendant. See Dkt. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:94
`
`
`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
`
`
`To date, Netflix’s understanding is that none of the Korean codefendants have
`appeared, none have been served, and none have a presence in the United States
`making them subject to service here. Netflix met and conferred with Plaintiff’s
`counsel on January 26, 2022. Declaration of John L. Schwab In Support of Netflix,
`Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss ¶ 3. In addition to discussing the instant Motion, Plaintiff
`explained that it was attempting to serve the Korean codefendants in Korea via
`Hague processes. Id. Netflix requested an extension of time so that Plaintiff could
`attempt to effect service on the other named Defendants, and all potential motions
`could be briefed and submitted to the Court at the same time. Id. Plaintiff declined.
`Id. ¶ 5.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Does Not,
`and Cannot, Allege That It Owns The Exclusive Right To
`Translate #Saraitda.
`To plead a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that
`it owns or controls an exclusive right under copyright, and that the defendant has
`infringed that right. See, e.g., UMG Recordings Inc. v. Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175 (9th
`Cir. 2011); 17 U.S.C. 501(b) (authorizing the “owner of an exclusive right under a
`copyright … to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right[.]”)
`(emphasis added). Ownership of an exclusive right is “a necessary predicate for
`[statutory] standing to bring the claim” and therefore must be properly pled in a
`complaint. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978,
`986 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 795
`F.3d 997, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). The court need not “accept any unreasonable
`inferences or assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual
`allegations.” Brown v. Elec. Arts Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1248 (9th Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:95
`
`
`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
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Does Not And Cannot Allege Ownership of an
`Infringed Right
`
`Plaintiff has failed to plead that it holds an exclusive right that Netflix has
`infringed and, therefore, has failed to plead it has standing to pursue an infringement
`claim.
`
`(a) Plaintiff Does Not Allege Ownership Of The Right To
`Translate #Saraitda
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Netflix (and other Defendants) infringed by translating
`#Saraitda into “English” and “other non-Korean languages.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 4
`(contending that Netflix “had no rights to distribute Saraitda dubbed into English or
`any other non-Korean language”); id. ¶ 32 (“Netflix … created a high-quality
`dubbed and subtitled version of [Saraitda] in English”). For Plaintiff to have
`standing to complain about this conduct, Plaintiff must allege that it holds the
`exclusive right to translate #Saraitda, and to distribute the translated film. Plaintiff
`does not plead exclusive ownership of that right.
`(b) Plaintiff Cannot Plead Ownership Of The Right To
`Translate #Saraitda Because, Under Korean Law, Naylor
`Conveyed That Right To Zip/Perspective
`Plaintiff concedes that its own rights derive from the rights Aridi allegedly
`acquired from Naylor. But Aridi could only acquire rights that Naylor had to give
`as of April 1, 2019, the date of the Aridi Agreement. The Aridi Agreement
`specifically excluded from the transfer to Aridi
`
`
`
` RJN Ex. C § 2(a).
`Plaintiff is well aware of that limitation: Aridi is the CEO of Plaintiff, and
`
`
` See RJN Ex. E at 2. Given that carveout, Naylor could not grant any rights
`—which includes both the rights
`
`
`Naylor conveyed to the Korean Producers
`—when he granted Aridi the rights that Plaintiff now
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:96
`
`
`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
`
`
`purports to enforce. Compl. ¶¶ 16–18; RJN Ex. C at §2(a). In short, Plaintiff can at
`most plead that it controls all rights that are not set forth in the Naylor/Zip
`Agreement.
`That creates an insurmountable problem for Plaintiff, because Naylor granted
`the Korean Producers the right to translate #Saraitda as a matter of Korean law,
`which controls the Naylor/Zip Agreement. As Plaintiff alleges, the Naylor/Zip
`Agreement gave the Korean Producers the right to produce a
`
`
`
`
` that picture. Compl. ¶ 15; RJN Ex. B
`§1. Naylor and the Korean Producers further consented
`
`
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 18. This Court may
`consider the content of Korean law on a motion to dismiss, including through
`declarations, and it is dispositive here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1; de Fontbrune v.
`Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2016) (“courts do not transgress the broad
`boundaries established by Rule 44.1 when considering foreign legal materials—
`including expert testimony and declarations—at the pleading stage”).
`Article 99 of the Korean Copyright Act provides that “[i]f the holder of
`author’s economic right authorizes another person to exploit his/her work by means
`of cinematization, such authorization shall be presumed to include,” among other
`rights, “the right to exploit the translation of a cinematographic work in the same
`manner as the cinematographic work,” unless “otherwise expressly stipulated.”
`Chung Decl. Ex. A at 1–2. Thus, the default rule under Korean law is that the right
`to translate a motion picture from the Korean language into other languages is
`presumed to be transferred with the right to produce the motion picture, unless the
`parties expressly agree that those translation rights are not transferred.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:97
`
`
`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
`
`
`(c) Plaintiff Cannot Plead That Naylor Reserved The Right to
`Translate #Saraitda
`In order to plead that it owns the exclusive right to translate #Saraitda,
`Plaintiff must plead that Naylor expressly reserved those rights for himself under
`Korean law and then later transferred them to Aridi.
`Plaintiff cannot make that allegation. The Naylor/Zip Agreement contains no
`stipulation reserving to Naylor the right to translate the Korean-language movie that
`he authorized the Korean Producers to create. The Agreement expressly reserves
`for Naylor
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 1(a). Plainly, the
`reservation of those rights does nothing to reverse the Korean-law presumption that
`the Korean Producers acquired not only the right to create and distribute #Saraitda,
`but to translate it into languages other than Korean.
`The Naylor/Zip Agreement also
`
`
`
`
`
`
` To be sure, the Complaint appears to suggest that the translation of
`#Saraitda is a “derivative right[]” of Naylor’s copyright in the screenplay. Compl.
`¶ 15. But #Alive is a translation of the Korean-language movie, #Saraitda, not of
`the screenplay, Devour. And Plaintiff does not, and cannot, allege that anything
` is an express stipulation to
`about
`reverse the Korean-law presumption regarding translation rights. Indeed, the
`Naylor/Zip Agreement’s
`
`
`
`Agreement provides as examples
`
` As noted, the Naylor/Zip
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 1(a). All of those involve the
`creation of new works, not the translation of the movie that the Korean Producers
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-AB-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:98
`
`
`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
`
`
`acquired the right to create and distribute. Thus, the
`does nothing to reverse the Korean-law presumption on translations.
`The Naylor/Zip Agreement also provides that Naylor
`
` provision
`
`
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 1(a). This
`provision, too, does nothing to reverse the Korean-law presumption about the rights
`Naylor granted to the Korean Producers. The provision says nothing about
`#Saraitda, which the Agreement repeatedly refers to as the “Korean Picture.” Id.
`§§ 1, 3, 4. And the provision has nothing to do with translating that movie (or any
`
`other), but instead speaks of the right
`
`
`
` In short, nothing in the Naylor/Zip Agreement reverses the Korean-law
`presumption about translation rights, much less does so expressly.
`Not only is the Naylor/Zip Agreement lacking any express reversal of the
`Korean law presumption. The Agreement has numerous provisions that confirm the
`Korean Producers acquired not only the right to produce and distribute #Saraitda
`but to translate it. For example, Naylor granted the Korean Producers the right to
`exploit #Saraitda
`
`
`
` RJN Ex. B § 1. Those rights are entirely
`consist