Sean Hall, doing business as Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, an individual v. Taylor Swift, an individual;

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN HALL, doing business as Gimme
Some Hot Sauce Music, an individual;
NATHAN BUTLER, doing business as
Faith Force Music, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55426
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The Memorandum Disposition, filed on October 28, 2019, and reported at
782 F. App’x 639 (9th Cir. 2019), is amended as follows:
At 782 F. App’x at 639, all text, starting with the paragraph beginning with
<Originality, as we have long recognized> through the final paragraph concluding
with <we reverse the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).> is deleted.
Footnote 1 remains and follows the second full paragraph at 782 F. App’x at 639,
ending with <See Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).>.
A clean copy of the amended memorandum disposition is attached to this
order.
FILED
DEC 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
There has been no timely petition for panel rehearing or petition for
rehearing en banc. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be
filed.

-- 2 of 4 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN HALL, doing business as Gimme
Some Hot Sauce Music, an individual;
NATHAN BUTLER, doing business as
Faith Force Music, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55426
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS
AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 15, 2019
San Diego, California
Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Sean Hall and Nathan Butler (together, Hall) appeal from the district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of their complaint against
Taylor Swift, Martin Sandberg, and Karl Schuster (together, Swift) alleging
copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Swift’s hit song Shake It Off
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
DEC 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 3 of 4 --

2
(2014) illegally copied a six-word phrase and a four-part lyrical sequence from
Hall’s Playas Gon’ Play (2001). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See
Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). As the parties are
familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed the complaint based on a lack of originality in
the pertinent portions of Hall’s work. See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 810 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Any copyrighted expression must be ‘original.’ Although the amount
of creative input . . . required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not
negligible.” (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340,
345, 362 (1991))); see also 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.05[B] (2017) (noting that
originality is established when “the work originates in the author” and “has a spark
that goes beyond the banal or trivial”). Even taking into account the matters of
which the district court took judicial notice, see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d
903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003), Hall’s complaint still plausibly alleged originality.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 Swift argues that this Court should affirm the district court’s decision on other
grounds. However, we decline to do so. The district court may consider Swift’s
alternative arguments on remand.

-- 4 of 4 --