Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FATHERS & DAUGHTERS NEVADA, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. Baraa Alchami, Jorge Garza, Jamie Larson, Mansi Parikh, & Does 2 & 5, DEFENDANTS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV DEFENDANT JAMIE LARSON S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES JAMIE LARSON, named Defendant in the above-styled cause, and files this Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint ( Complaint, ECF No. 18) filed by Plaintiff Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC ( F&D or "Plaintiff"). The gist of Ms. Larson s defense is the simple fact that she did not download the work she is accused of infringing. Ms. Larson also challenges Plaintiff's copyright. 1. DEFENDANT S GENERAL DENIAL 1.1. Pursuant to Rule 8(b)(3) concerning general denials, Defendant generally denies the specific allegations contained in Count I, paragraphs of the Complaint and further responds to specific allegations contained of the Complaint below. Defendant expressly denies that as a direct or proximate result of any acts or omissions on the part of these answering Defendants, Plaintiff herein sustained or suffered injury or damage in any amount at all Plaintiff has failed to follow Rule 10(b) by filing its Complaint without numbered paragraphs in much of its complaint, making reference to specific allegations. Defendant will therefore generally deny all unnumbered allegations. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 1

2 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 2 of 8 2. DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO THE PREAMBLE 2.1. The allegations in this section contain spurious allegations which appear to be designed to convince this Court that copyright infringement involving BitTorrent protocols can be reduced to a Hash Value, ignoring the nuances of whether an IP address can be spoofed, and whether the owner of an IP network involved in BitTorrent filesharing should be held strictly liable for any infringement that occurs in connection with even a valid IP address. Plaintiff appears to be glossing over unsettled law to propose a foundational legal canvas on which it wishes to paint this suit which the Defendant denies, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to prove. 3. NOTE REGARDING THE COMPLAINT 3.1. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Procedure requires that a claim must contain a short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief and demand for the relief sought The Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, as it contains a spurious and self-anointed treatise regarding BitTorrent law, irrelevant claims regarding academy awards, entire paragraphs dedicated to what Defendant can only assume are attempts to impress parties in interest with its industry prowess. The result of Plaintiff s approach to the pleading appears to put Defendant in a position to either admit or deny such irrelevant facts as whether Natalie Portman s directorial debut, A Tale of Love and Darkness, was selected as a Cannes 2015 Film Festival special screening that premiered on May 18 th, While this Court could require a repleading of the Complaint so that a reasonable person might colorably agree that the Complaint complies with Rule 8, Defendant recognizes that judicial efficiency might frown on a full hearing on this matter, and will simply deny all such irrelevant statements with a denial pursuant to Rule 8(b)(5), and further request that the Court 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 2

3 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 3 of 8 take note that Plaintiff s 22-page Complaint is replete with superfluous language and should not be rewarded if attorney fees are sought for its authorship. 4. DEFENDANT S ANSWERS TO ENUMERATED PARAGRAPHS 4.1. Admit with respect to F&D s status as a Nevada Limited Liability Company. Defendant is not knowledgeable of the location of its principal offices, but does not deny otherwise Deny. While Plaintiff may have a registration with the Copyright Office, Defendant denies that F&D is the author of the work in question or has right to sue Deny. Defendant is not knowledgeable regarding these allegations, whether relevant or not. Defendant will deny these all such allegations without further comment Deny Deny Deny Deny Admit Admit Deny due to lack of knowledge regarding the allegation Deny due to lack of knowledge regarding the allegation Admit Admit Deny due to lack of knowledge regarding the allegation Deny due to lack of knowledge regarding the allegation Deny due to lack of knowledge regarding the allegation Admit that the law cited is fairly summarized. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 3

4 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 4 of Admit that the law cited is fairly summarized Admit the District Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Defendant is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion made by the Plaintiff regarding geo-location of the any IP address, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Defendant is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion made by the Plaintiff regarding the residence in this district of Defendants Alchami and Garza, but does not deny otherwise; Defendant admits Defendants Larson and Parikh reside in this district Defendant is not knowledgeable of the general jurisdiction over this Court over Defendants Alchami and Garza, but does not deny otherwise; Defendant admits this Court has general jurisdiction over Defendants Larson and Parikh Defendant admits the notion of specific jurisdiction as a general proposition but reserves the right to leave Plaintiff to its proof with regard to the matter before the Court Defendant is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion made by the Plaintiff regarding reproduction or distribution of F&D s work, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof; Defendant denies she reproduced or distributed the work in question Defendant admits the notion of specific jurisdiction as a general proposition but, given certain predicates must be fulfilled before reaching determining such specific jurisdiction exists in the matter before the Court, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Admit Admit Deny, as Plaintiff asserts a holding by the Fifth Circuit without supporting law, and therefore, Defendant leaves Plaintiff to its proof. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 4

5 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 5 of Defendant admits the notion of venue as a general proposition but, given certain predicates must be fulfilled before reaching determining such venue is proper exists in the matter before the Court, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Deny Deny Deny Admit that the work in question is connected to the named registration certificate, but Defendant denies that F&D is the author, and denies for lack of knowledge as to what, exactly, is covered by the registration so that Defendant might be considered infringing Defendant is not knowledgeable whether the work in question is wholly original, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Defendant is not knowledgeable whether the work in question is currently offered for sale in commerce, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Deny for lack of knowledge Deny for lack of knowledge Defendant admits the notion of permissive joinder but is not knowledgeable of Plaintiff s factual assertions regarding either the allegations made in the Complaint arising out of the same occurrences or transactions, or series of occurrences or transactions or that there are questions of law and facts common to each of the named Defendants, and therefore denies Defendant is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion made by the Plaintiff regarding copying of the work in question and any associated identifying numbers associated with such work, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Deny. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 5

6 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 6 of Defendant admits the general notion of efficiency and cost savings associated with joinder but has no knowledge of the predicate assertions made by the Plaintiff regarding whether such joinder is proper in this case and, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Admit The statement is not an allegation to be admitted or denied Deny Deny Deny Defendant is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion made by the Plaintiff regarding substantial similarity of the work in question to any work allegedly download by Defendant, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Admit Deny Deny Deny Deny Deny; Defendant further is not knowledgeable of the factual assertion and is not in possession of information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation without knowledge of the asserted fees and costs, and thus reserves the right to object to the amount requested Deny Deny. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 6

7 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 7 of Defendant admits the general notion of vicarious liability but denies any application to the cause before the Court or relation to the work at issue, and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to its proof Deny Deny. 5. ADDITIONAL FACTS 5.1. Defendant is the innocent account holder of a communal shared wireless network and did not download the work she is accused of infringing. 6. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6.1. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) - Not every holder of a copyright can claim the right to sue for the infringement of that right. Even assuming that F&D has a valid copyright to the entire motion picture as described in the F&D copyright registration [ECF No. 21-1], Plaintiff has not shown that it has the exclusive right to sue on the registration, and Defendant does not believe that the movie is a work for hire by F&D. Having failed to produce a chain of copyright title, Defendant challenges F&D s right to sue RULE 8(c)(1) [ILLEGALITY and FRAUD] To qualify as a work of authorship, a work must be created by a human being. F&D is not a human being. While the registration claims that the work was created as a work for hire, Defendants expect to show the Court that Plaintiff does not have chain of title with every person that was the correct author of the movie s new footage, production as a motion picture, editing, photography, dialogue, music, and special effects, and thus show that the work s registration is a fraud LIMITATION ON DAMAGES Defendant was the innocent account holder of a communal shared wireless network and did not download the work she is accused of infringing. 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 7

8 Case 4:16-cv Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 11/03/16 Page 8 of 8 Based on those facts, Defendant requests a limitation on damages to the statutory minimum for an unknowing infringer, or $200. PRAYER for RELIEF Defendant prays that this Court deny all claims, and allow reasonable attorney fees and costs against Plaintiff for its unwarranted lawsuit, awarding such other and further relief to Defendant may be entitled to in law or equity. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Warren V. Norred Warren Norred, Texas Bar No wnorred@norredlaw.com C. Chad Lampe, Texas Bar No chad@norredlaw.com Jeffrey S. Rutledge, Texas Bar No jeff@norredlaw.com 200 E. Abram, Suite 300 Arlington, TX Tel. (817) , Fax. (817) Attorneys for Defendant Jamie Larson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that on November 3, 2016, a true and correct copy of Defendant s Original Answer was served by the Court s ECF system to all counsel of record. By: /s/warren V. Norred Warren V. Norred 4:16-CV-01315, Defendant Larson s Original Answer to Second Amended Complaint Page 8