10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Case 2:25-cv-01774-JHC Document 18 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD EL, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01774-JHC
`
`ORDER
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`KANYE WEST (YE), ET AL,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Amschel Rothschild
`El’s Complaint (Dkt. # 5), as modified by the “Bill in Equity to Join Additional Respondents”
`(Dkt. # 16).
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims of: (1) copyright infringement; (2) misappropriation
`of likeness and right of publicity; (3) unjust enrichment and constructive trust; (4) fraudulent
`conveyance; and (5) civil conspiracy and joint venture liability. Dkt. # 5 at 6. The Complaint, as
`supplemented by the Bill of Equity, names more than 40 defendants. See Dkt. ## 5, 16.
`Defendants consist of various “music artists, producers, record labels, publishing companies,
`
`corporate affiliates, and business partners.” Dkt. # 5 at 4.
`
`ORDER - 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Case 2:25-cv-01774-JHC Document 18 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3
`
`A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28
`U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 112627 (9th Cir.
`2000) (en banc). If a court determines that a complaint filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is
`frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that are immune
`from such relief, the court must dismiss the case sua sponte. 1d.; see also 28 U.S.C. §
`1915(e)(2)(B). To adequately state a claim, a complaint must include “a short and plain
`statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A
`plaintiff need not provide detailed factual allegations, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
`of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Igbal,
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Still,
`when the plaintiff is pro se, a court must “construe the pleadings liberally and afford the
`petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
`Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)).
`
`Even under a liberal construction of the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
`relief. The Complaint does not include any specific facts that show that Plaintiff is entitled to the
`relief he seeks. Instead, it includes only vague assertions and conclusory statements. For
`example, Plaintiff claims he is “the originator of certain musical compositions, lyrics, lyrical
`performances, image, likeness, trade names, and brand identity” but the Complaint does not
`specify what these “certain” works are. See Dkt. # 5 at 5. Similarly, the Complaint alleges that
`Defendants have “unlawfully misappropriated, copied, distributed, performed, and monetized
`Plaintiff’s works without [Plaintiff’s] knowledge or consent” but the Complaint does not specify
`which works, let alone when or how Defendants engaged in these alleged acts. Id. The
`Complaint also does not explain how each of the named Defendants (except for Defendant Kim
`
`Kardashian) is involved in the alleged misappropriation or otherwise relates to this action. See
`
`ORDER -2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Case 2:25-cv-01774-JHC Document 18 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3
`
`generally id. Given these deficiencies, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for copyright
`infringement, misappropriation of likeness and right of publicity, unjust enrichment and
`constructive trust, fraudulent conveyance, or civil conspiracy and joint venture liability.
`Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plamntiff’s claims.
`
`For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. ## 5, 16) without
`prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend, if
`he wishes, within 14 days of the filing of this Order. If Plamntiff files a timely amended
`complaint and it does not meet the pleading standards, the Court will dismiss the matter with
`prejudice.
`
`Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
`
`Cf o K. Clur
`
`John H. Chun
`United States District Judge
`
`ORDER -3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`