Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 28 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 13

Similar documents
Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 27 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv RLH -GWF Document 63-1 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv RLH -GWF Document 127 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO RIGHTHAVEN LLC, Appellant. WAYNE HOEHN, Appellee

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 16

Case 2:10-cv RLH -GWF Document 58 Filed 01/08/11 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:13-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 2:11-cv ECR -PAL Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:11-cv PMP -RJJ Document 52 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. For its answer to the Complaint, Defendants James Allen Diamonds, Inc.

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104

Case3:12-cv CRB Document52 Filed04/05/13 Page1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 9 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:218

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE : : : : : : : Chapter 7

MOTION OF BARCO, INC. FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIM PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(9)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION, AKRON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. enforcement of the Arbitration Award entered November 24, 2015 styled In the

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 02/23/15 1 of 5. PageID #: 299 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Case: CJP Doc #: 45 Filed: 01/26/17 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/14/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016

I. ANSWER. COMES NOW Defendant IMPULSE MEDIA GROUP, INC. in the above-captioned

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

Case: 5:09-cv DDD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/04/09 1 of 5. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv REB Document 1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 7

corporation with its principal place of business in Redford, Michigan. Attorney for Plaintiff Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200 Plaintiff, Case No.

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:18-cv YK Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/05/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:12-cv MGC Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2013 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv JVB-JEM document 1 filed 09/16/18 page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION C.A. NO. 1:16-CV TCB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7

Case: 4:17-cv AGF Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/23/17 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2018

Case: LTS Doc#:111 Filed:05/25/17 Entered:05/25/17 13:40:50 Document Page 1 of 6

Case 6:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

smb Doc 117 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 17:00:54 Main Document Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:17-cv JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Case No.

NOTICE OF TWENTY-FIFTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS (Redundant Claims)

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

Case 1:09-cv JCH-DJS Document 91 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Attorney for Plaintiff TIPSY ELVES LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:07-cv KJD-RJJ Document 95 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:17-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case MFW Doc Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

mew Doc 3804 Filed 08/30/18 Entered 08/30/18 15:11:04 Main Document Pg 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:14-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 227

Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12

Case 1:19-cv PKC Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Civil Action No: HON. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 2:16-cr GMN-PAL Document 3031 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 6

NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Case 1:14-cv TSC Document 113 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv NLH-KMW Document 19 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv TLS-SLC document 1 filed 11/29/18 page 1 of 6. Defendant. COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:10-cv-2904-T-23TBM

rbk Doc#536 Filed 09/04/18 Entered 09/04/18 14:39:05 Main Document Pg 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 19 Filed: 11/06/14 1 of 8. PageID #: 221

Case KG Doc 320 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:17-cv JCS Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv SLB Document 14 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:13-cv JJB-SCR Document 27 09/20/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv JVB-JEM document 1 filed 11/01/18 page 1 of 7

Case 2:11-cv CDJ Document 12 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:07-cv RCJ-GWF Document 1 Filed 12/26/2007 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 0:13-cv JIC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:17-cv VEC Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 6

2:13-cv VAR-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 11/20/14 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 586 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Transcription:

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone (0) - facsimile J. CHARLES COONS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. ccoons@righthaven.com Assistant General Counsel at Righthaven LLC Righthaven LLC 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) -00 Attorneys for Righthaven LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, v. Plaintiff, THOMAS A. DIBIASE, an individual, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM Case No.: :-cv-0-rlh-pal COUNTER-DEFENDANT RIGHTHAVEN LLC S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM Counter-defendant Righthaven LLC ( Righthaven ) has moved this Court to dismiss or, alternatively, strike Thomas A. DiBiase s ( DiBiase ) Counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)() ( Rule (b)() ) and Federal Rule Civil Procedure (f) ( Rule (f) ) (Doc. #, Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss ). The undersigned and newly substituted counsel, however, was unaware that language contained in a stipulation and order granting certain extensions of time included reference to Righthaven filing an answer and which omitted the

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of customary language or other response with regard to a December, 0 filing deadline. (Doc. # at.) While Righthaven s counsel apologized for any misunderstanding and continues to maintain that Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss obviates the need for this filing, upon opposing out-of-state counsel s demand, nevertheless agreed to honor the apparent spirit of the stipulation and hereby files this pleading even though a response to the Counterclaim is technically termed a reply and not an answer as described in the stipulation. As the Court will hopefully appreciate, Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss is directed at illustrating the unnecessary and redundant nature of DiBiase s Counterclaim. (Doc. #.) Righthaven asserts DiBiase s Counterclaim should be dismissed or stricken in view of the pleadings already before the Court. (Id.) That said, and in honoring the spirit of the stipulation between the parties before the undersigned counsel entered an appearance that apparently contemplated this filing, Righthaven replies to DiBiase s Counterclaim as follows: REPLY TO SPECIFIC COUNTERCLAIM PARAGRAPHS 0. Righthaven denies the allegations contained in paragraph of the Counterclaim. As set forth in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss, discretionary jurisdiction over the Counterclaim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, U.S.C. section 0, should not be exercised because the Counterclaim is redundant in view of the pleadings already before the Court. (Doc. #.) These pleadings include Righthaven s Complaint (Doc. # ) and DiBiase s answer and affirmative defenses (Doc. # at -:).. Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim, which is entitled Introduction, does not require a formal response as it is merely a self-serving, factually inaccurate diatribe asserted purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein and further asserts that DiBiase is liable for copyright infringement as alleged in the Complaint.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0. Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim merely paraphrases the allegations contained in paragraphs -, -0 and Exhibit to the Complaint, thereby demonstrating the duplicative and unnecessary contents of DiBiase s Counterclaim. (Doc. # at,-; Doc. - at.) To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph accurately reflect the contents of the above-listed paragraphs of Righthaven s Complaint and the information set forth in Exhibit attached thereto, Righthaven admits same. To the extent paragraph otherwise inaccurately describes the allegations of Righthaven s Complaint or its associated exhibits, Righthaven denies all such inaccurate or otherwise remaining allegations.. Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged for purely scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged for purely scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven admits, however, that DiBiase has held himself out as having the professional credentials alleged in connection with his operation of the Internet domain and his

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 control of the content appearing on same, which is the dissemination source for the unauthorized replication of the copyrighted work at-issue alleged in the Complaint.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven admits, however, that DiBiase has held himself out as having the professional credentials alleged in connection with his operation of the Internet domain and his control of the content appearing on same, which is the dissemination source for the unauthorized replication of the copyrighted work at-issue alleged in the Complaint.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven admits, however, that DiBiase has described a no body murder case as alleged in connection with his operation of the Internet domain and his control of the content appearing on same, which is the dissemination source for the unauthorized replication of the copyrighted work at-issue alleged in the Complaint.. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven admits, however, that DiBiase has held himself out as having the professional credentials alleged in connection with his operation of the Internet domain and his control of the content appearing on same, which is the dissemination source for the unauthorized replication of the copyrighted work at-issue alleged in the Complaint.. Righthaven admits the allegations contained in paragraph of the Counterclaim as it contains the Internet URL for the website with which DiBiase disseminated a 0% unauthorized replication of the copyrighted work at-issue in the Complaint. The allegations contained in this paragraph once again mirror those contained in Righthaven s Complaint and further demonstrate the redundancy and unnecessary filing of the Counterclaim as argued in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph are already at-issue and within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)() based on the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. # ) and DiBiase s answer and affirmative defenses (Doc. # at -:).. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph are already at-issue and within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)() based on the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. # ) and DiBiase s answer and affirmative defenses (Doc. # at -:).. In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that it lacks denies same. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph are already at-issue and within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)() based on the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. # ) and DiBiase s answer and affirmative defenses (Doc. # at -:).. Righthaven admits the allegations contained in paragraph. In fact, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because Righthaven has asserted a copyright infringement claim against DiBiase. (See Doc. # at.) DiBiase has asserted non-infringement in his answer and through his affirmative defenses. (Doc. # at -:). In answering paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven states that the phrase non-commercial calls for a legal conclusion under the fair use exception codified under section () and on that basis denies same. Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has asserted a fair use affirmative defense in this case (Doc. # at :, Righthaven s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of fair use. ), once again making the allegations

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim. To the extent the allegations of this paragraph require a further response, Righthaven denies them. 0. In responding to paragraph 0 of the Counterclaim, Righthaven admits that DiBiase publishes the website in question, which serves as the dissemination point for his alleged infringing conduct as set forth in the Complaint. Righthaven is without information and belief as to the altruistic intents of DiBiase, which form the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and on that ground denies same.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven admits that [a]ssisting prosecutors and homicide investigators in bringing justice to the friends and families of no body murder victims... is a commendable civic-minded goal. Righthaven denies, however, that this societal benefit should come at the expense of violating the exclusive rights granted to the holders of copyright protected works or that DiBiase s alleged goal could not have been accomplished with the grant of consent for republication, which was never sought by him. To the extent the allegations of this paragraph require a further response, Righthaven denies them.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven admits that the work at-issue contains some degree of factual content together with original, creative authorship and related research endeavors by the writer. To the extent this paragraph requires an additional response, Righthaven denies them.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without sufficient information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim is directed, at best, to the subject of non-statutory damage matters, which, if at all relevant, is placed at-issue by Righthaven s Complaint. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph, to the extent relevant in view of the relief requested in Righthaven s Complaint, are within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 Procedure (b)(). To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim does not require a formal response as it is alleged purely for scandalous purposes and which have no bearing on the merits of the claims or defenses before the Court. To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In answering responding to of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim is, at best, directed to the subject of non-statutory damage matters, which, if at all relevant, is placed at-issue by Righthaven s Complaint. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph, to the extent relevant in view of the relief requested in Righthaven s Complaint, are within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)(). To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven is without information and belief as to what information DiBiase has based his belief in making the allegations contained therein. Righthaven s inability to speculate as to DiBiase s mental processes and intellectual vacillations aside, Righthaven asserts that paragraph of the Counterclaim is, at best, tangentially related to the subject of non-statutory damage matters, which, if at all relevant, is placed at-issue by Righthaven s Complaint. Righthaven further responds that the contents of this paragraph, to the extent relevant in view of the relief requested in Righthaven s Complaint, are within the ambit of discoverable information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b)(). To the extent it is determined that a formal response is required to this paragraph, Righthaven denies all allegations contained therein.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven admits the work at-issue was available for viewing purposes on the source publication s website, which derives distinct economic and non-economic benefits from Internet traffic and online viewership. Righthaven additionally responds that viewing the work on the source publication website does not authorize someone, like DiBiase, to misappropriate 0% of the content found on the source publication s website for his own use and benefit without authorization from the copyright holder. Such conduct unquestionably amounts to copyright infringement, which DiBiase should have known given his legal education. Righthaven denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph to the extent they require a response.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven asserts that the incorporation by reference averment does not require a formal response. To the extent a formal response to this paragraph is required, Righthaven incorporates its responses to all corresponding paragraphs in this reply to DiBiase s Counterclaim, which includes the overall objection that the Counterclaim is unnecessary and redundant in view of the other pleadings already before the Court.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0. In responding to paragraph 0 of the Counterclaim, Righthaven admits that it has alleged willful infringement by DiBiase of the work at-issue in its Complaint. (Doc. # at.) The allegations contained in paragraph 0 further demonstrate the duplicative and unnecessary contents of DiBiase s Counterclaim.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein as evidenced by its Complaint against DiBiase. (Doc. #.) Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has answered the Complaint by denying he has committed copyright infringement (Doc. # at, Mr. DiBiase denies that he has committed copyright infringement. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of that his Counterclaim is unnecessary and redundant.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein. Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has asserted a fair use affirmative defense in this case (Doc. # at :, Righthaven s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of fair use. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein as evidenced by its Complaint against DiBiase. (Doc. #.) Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has answered the Complaint by denying he has committed copyright infringement (Doc. # at, Mr. DiBiase denies that he has committed copyright infringement. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein as evidenced by its Complaint against DiBiase. (Doc. #.) Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has answered the Complaint by denying he has committed copyright infringement (Doc. # at, Mr. DiBiase denies that he has committed copyright infringement. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein as evidenced by its Complaint against DiBiase. (Doc. #.) Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has answered the Complaint by denying he has committed copyright infringement (Doc. # at, Mr. DiBiase denies that he has committed copyright infringement. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies the allegations contained therein as evidenced by its Complaint against DiBiase. (Doc. #.) Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase has answered the Complaint by denying he has committed copyright infringement (Doc. # at, Mr. DiBiase denies that he has committed copyright infringement. ), once again making the allegations contained in this paragraph an example of his unnecessary and redundant Counterclaim.. In responding to paragraph of the Counterclaim, Righthaven denies that DiBiase is entitled to any relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act in view of the allegations asserted herein and given the authorities presented in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss, which it maintains is ripe for decision despite this filing of this reply. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 0 Subject to Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss, the company asserts the following affirmative defenses against the Counterclaim:. The Counterclaim fails to state a claim for relief upon which can be granted and, as set forth in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss, should be dismissed pursuant to Rule (b)().. The Counterclaim should be stricken pursuant to Rule (f), as set forth in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss.

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of WHEREFORE, Righthaven respectfully requests that DiBiase s Counterclaim be dismissed or stricken pursuant to Rule (b)() or Rule (f) as set forth in Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #.) To the extent the Counterclaim survives Righthaven s Motion to Dismiss, Righthaven respectfully requests the Court deny each and every aspect of the relief requested by DiBiase. Righthaven additionally maintains that DiBiase s request for a jury trial in the Counterclaim is additionally unnecessary as Righthaven has already made such a demand in the Complaint. Dated this st day of December, 0. SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - J. CHARLES COONS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. ccoons@righthaven.com Assistant General Counsel at Righthaven LLC Righthaven LLC 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) -00 Attorneys for Righthaven LLC 0

Case :-cv-0-rlh -PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b), I hereby certify that I am a representative of Righthaven LLC and that on this st day of December, 0, I caused the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RIGHTHAVEN LLC S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM to be served by the Court s CM/ECF system. SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - J. CHARLES COONS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. ccoons@righthaven.com Assistant General Counsel at Righthaven LLC Righthaven LLC 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) -00 Attorneys for Righthaven LLC 0