Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court erred by granting H&M’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Although Malibu did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim for copyright infringement, the district court abused its discretion by denying Malibu the opportunity to amend its complaint. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if the complaint “could not be saved by any amendment.” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, that is not the ease.

To state a claim for copyright infringement, Malibu first had to allege facts plausibly showing ownership of a valid copyright. See Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 , 1162 (9th Cir. 1977). The district court held that Malibu failed to plausibly allege ownership because it did not include a copyright registration number in its complaint. Assuming for the sake of argument that the registration number must be pleaded in the complaint, Malibu’s failure to do so cannot be deemed fatal. Malibu could of course have amended the complaint to include the copyright registration number.

Malibu next had to allege facts plausibly showing that H&M copied the protected…