NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California No. 15-55287
corporation, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-07648-PSG-RZ
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2016
Submission Vacated March 15, 2017
Re-submitted October 17, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW ** and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Stephen R.
Reinhardt. Following Judge Reinhardt’s death, Judge Wardlaw was drawn by lot
to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Wardlaw has read the
briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.
***
The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the
Judge.
In this case, we previously certified two questions to the California Supreme
Court. See Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 851 F.3d 950 (9th Cir.
2017). In May 2019, the California Supreme Court dismissed consideration of the
certified questions. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the district court’s
order and remand for further proceedings.
The present litigation arises out of Pandora’s streaming of music owned by
Flo & Eddie, a corporation controlled by two founding members of the 1960s folk
rock band, The Turtles. Flo & Eddie brought an action under California copyright
and consumer protection law alleging that Pandora owed royalties for its streaming
of The Turtles’ music. Pandora subsequently filed a motion to strike Flo &
Eddie’s claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The district court
denied Pandora’s anti-SLAPP motion—reasoning that although Pandora’s conduct
was protected, Flo & Eddie had a reasonable probability of prevailing on its state
copyright claim—and Pandora timely appealed.
In a March 2017 order, we certified two questions to the California Supreme
Court concerning issues of first impression under California state law. The court
granted our request and ordered the parties to brief the issues. But, before the
California Supreme Court could answer the certified questions, Congress passed
District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
2
the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (“the MMA”), which
preempts any state law claim arising before the passage of the Act from the digital
audio transmission of a pre-1972 song if the transmitting party meets certain
conditions, including paying statutory royalties. See 17 U.S.C. § 1401(e).
Following enactment of the MMA, the California Supreme Court requested
supplemental briefing on whether the enactment of the MMA rendered it
unnecessary to resolve the state law certified questions. After the filing of the
supplemental briefs, the California Supreme Court dismissed the certified
questions and returned the case to this court. Upon our request, the parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the effect of the MMA on the probability of Flo &
Eddie prevailing on its claims, which in turn informs the analysis of Pandora’s
anti-SLAPP motion.
The MMA preempts common-law copyright claims arising from the use of
pre-1972 recordings that occurs on or after the date of the MMA's enactment. See
17 U.S.C. § 301(c). In addition, section 1401(e) of the MMA provides a
preemption defense to similar claims arising from a transmission or reproduction,
made before the date of the MMA’s enactment, of a pre-1972 recording if the
transmission or reproduction would have satisfied statutory licensing requirements
under section 114(d)(1)–(2), or 112(e)(1), respectively, and, within 270 days after
the enactment of the MMA, the transmitting entity pays statutory royalties for the
3
use of the recordings occurring during the three-year period prior to the date of
enactment and provides notice of the use of the recordings. See 17 U.S.C. §
1401(e)(1)(A)–(B).
To be eligible for the statutory licensing regime under section 114(d), the
transmitter must not be part of an “interactive service,” among other things. 17
U.S.C. § 114(d)(2)(A). Eligibility for statutory licensing under section 112(e)
requires meeting a different set of criteria, including that the phonorecord in
question be “destroyed within six 6 months from the date the sound recording was
first transmitted to the public using the phonorecord[,]” unless it is used
exclusively for archival preservation. See 17 U.S.C. § 112(e)(1)(C).
Whether the MMA applies to and preempts Flo & Eddie’s claims, as Flo &
Eddie note, cannot be answered on the record before us. The resolution of this
issue depends on various unanswered factual questions, including whether (1)
Pandora would have satisfied the specific statutory licensing requirements under
either section 114(d)(2) or 112(e)(1), or been exempt under section 114(d)(1); (2)
the relevant royalty payment was made within 270 days of the enactment of the
MMA; (3) that payment covered all reproductions and transmissions of pre-1972
recordings during the three-year period; (4) Pandora accurately identified all pre-
1972 recordings it reproduced or transmitted during the three-year period; and
finally, whether Pandora provided notice of the use of pre-1972 recordings within
4
270 days of the enactment of the MMA.
Although Pandora attaches a letter to its supplemental reply brief as
evidence that it made the requisite royalty payment by July 8, 2019, and that it
provided a federally appointed rights clearinghouse with notice of its transmission
of pre-1972 recordings, documents not filed with the district court are not part of
the record on appeal. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077
(9th Cir. 1988).
Pandora urges us to determine whether the district court erred in denying its
motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute without consideration of the
MMA, but whether the MMA preempts Flo & Eddie’s state-law claims (and, if so,
to what extent it preempts those claims) is closely linked with the merits of those
claims. The scope of the MMA’s preemption clauses and their application here
are, ultimately, questions of first impression, both in this case and in this court.
And although which questions may or may not be taken up and resolved for the
first time on appeal is left to the discretion of appellate courts, see Singleton v.
Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976), “[w]hen faced with a determination of applying a
new legal principle, a standard practice . . . is to remand to the district court for a
decision in the first instance.” Clark v. Chappell, 936 F.3d 944, 971 (9th Cir.
2019) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). See also, e.g., Ctr. for Bio.
Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 925 F.3d 1041, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019) (remanding to
5
the district court for the court to consider the merits of a claim in the first instance,
where the district court improperly determined there was no jurisdiction over the
case); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788, 800 (2017)
(remanding to the district court to apply in the first instance the correct legal
standard).
In addition, MMA preemption is an affirmative defense, and affirmative
defenses are typically not preserved unless they are pleaded in a party’s answer.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Perry v. O’Donnell, 749 F.2d 1346, 1353 (9th Cir. 1984).
Where new, intervening authority creates additional causes of action or affirmative
defenses that may materially alter the course of the litigation, the appropriate
remedy is to remand to the district court to allow the parties to amend their
pleadings in light of that intervening authority. See, e.g., Gonzales v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 712 F.3d 1271, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 2013) (vacating the district
court’s judgment and remanding for reconsideration of a motion to amend the
complaint in light of a relevant intervening opinion by this court); Doe I v. Nestle
USA, Inc., 766 F.3d 1013, 1026–27 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding with instructions to
allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint in light of relevant cases decided while an
appeal was pending).
Given the enactment of the MMA, the district court should address the
above dispositive factual and legal issues in the first instance. On remand, the
6
parties and the district court may also address any intervening developments in
California’s anti-SLAPP law. For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s
denial of Pandora’s anti-SLAPP motion, and remand for further proceedings.
We also GRANT Flo & Eddie, Inc.’s motion to strike the documents
attached to Pandora’s supplemental brief (Dkt. No. 155) because they were not
admitted in the district court and are not part of the record on appeal. Finally, we
GRANT Pandora Media, Inc.’s motion to change its name and accordingly amend
the caption in this case (Dkt. No. 130).
VACATED and REMANDED.
7