Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter LLC

Filing 14

AMENDED ANSWER to 4 Amended Complaint, by Lawriter LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rozelsky, Kurt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
C.A. NO. 1:16-CV-00327-TCB
FASTCASE, INC.,

)
)
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM )
DEFENDANT,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAWRITER, LLC d/b/a Casemaker, )
)
DEFENDANT/
)
COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF. )
)

AMENDED ANSWER TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, Lawriter, LLC d/b/a Casemaker, amending its answer filed
March 23, 2016, to the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Fastcase, Inc., and
asserting a counterclaim, as a matter of course, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would respectfully show unto the Court as
follows:
FOR A FIRST DEFENSE
1.

Each and every allegation not expressly admitted is denied.

2.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 1 as alleges this is a

declaratory judgment action seeking relief, including enjoining Defendant from
acting to impede Plaintiff’s publication for Plaintiff’s commercial purposes of

certain administrative rules, regulations and other state law or federal law, rules or
regulations. Defendant admits that Georgia Regulations are binding law and are
promulgated by public agencies of the State of Georgia published for the benefit of
the public by the Georgia Secretary of State, but denies that Defendant is
improperly attempting to impede Plaintiff’s publication of said rules and
regulations.
3.

In response to Paragraph 2, Defendant denies that it purports to have

exclusive rights to publish the Georgia Regulations, but admits that it sent Plaintiff
a demand that it remove from Plaintiff’s site and/or subscription services the
Georgia Regulations as improperly downloaded electronic files and data.
Defendant does not claim a copyright in the merely statutory text and numbering
contained in the content of the site.
4.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Amended

Complaint and denies that it claimed and/or claims an exclusive right to public
law, but affirmatively states that it has the exclusive right to control commercial
access to the Georgia Regulations as compiled and made available on-line by
Defendant.
5.

Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not require a

response by this Defendant; however, to the extent a response is required, the
allegations are denied.
2

6.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint, but affirmatively states that Defendant does not claim a
copyright in the statutory text and numbering contained in the content of the site.
7.

In response to Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant denies that it claims an exclusive right to publish other states’ laws,
rules and regulations, but reserves its legal and equitable rights in electronic files it
creates and maintains, including without limitation, the right to claim copyright in
any copyrightable materials, electronic files, data, source code and/or anything in
addition to the statutory text and numbering in the content of the site(s). Further,
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff seeks an advisory opinion as to any state other than
Georgia as there exists no justiciable controversy for this Court to consider.
8.

The allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are

admitted upon information and belief.
9.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.
10.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint inasmuch as Defendant is not claiming copyright protection
on merely statutory text and numbering in the content of any site(s).

3

11.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint as Plaintiff has improperly aggregated hypothetical values in
order to improperly allege the amount in controversy.
12.

Defendant admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction, but denies

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
inasmuch as Defendant did more than merely “publish” the Georgia Regulations.
13.

To the extent that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the

matter, then Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
14.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 15 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint upon information and belief.
15.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.
16.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint as alleged.
17.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 18 as pled, but

affirmatively states that the website has been modified to render moot these
allegations as the terms and conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit A, have been
posted to the website since April 7, 2016.
18.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21.
4

19.

In response to Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant denies that is sources its Georgia research materials from any website
hosted by private publishers and is without sufficient information to admit or deny
the otherwise vague allegations of Paragraph 22 and demands strict proof thereof.
20.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint as alleged.
21.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.
22.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint as alleged.
23.

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint, Defendant admits that a letter reserving all rights, including litigation,
was sent to Plaintiff on or about December 21, 2015; however, Defendant does not
intend to commence, institute and/or file any litigation regarding any use of the
Electronic Files by Plaintiff prior to April 7, 2016.
24.

Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not require a

response by this Defendant; however, to the extent a response is required, the
allegations are denied.
25.

In response to Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant admits that it has asserted entitlement to certain exclusivity rights with
5

respect to the Georgia Regulations, in particular the Electronic Files, and had
demanded that Plaintiff comply with this assertion of exclusive rights, but denies
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and
demands strict proof thereof.
26.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.
27.

In response to Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant admits that it does not have and has not asserted entitlement to
copyright protection of the merely statutory text and numbering in any site(s), but
maintains certain exclusivity rights with respect to electronic files, data, and/or
other copyrightable materials on the site(s).
28.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.
29.

In response to Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant admits that it did not contribute any original authorship to the text of
any regulation of the State of Georgia or the numbering thereof. Defendant denies
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
30.

In response to Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Defendant admits that it is not seeking to enforce its contract with the State of

6

Georgia against Plaintiff, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 33 of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
31.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38

and Prayer for Relief of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and demands strict proof
thereof.
FOR A SECOND DEFENSE
(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction- FRCP 12(b)(1))
32.

The preceding responses, not inconsistent herewith, are incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.
33.

The Complaint of the Plaintiff should be dismissed for failure to

properly assert subject matter jurisdiction.
34.

Defendant does not present a claim for copyright infringement against

Plaintiff; Defendant’s claims arise under state law. Thus this matter does not arise
under the Copyright Act.
35.

Further, Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction

inasmuch as it improperly amalgamates damages in a failed attempt to reach the
required amount in controversy.
FOR A THIRD DEFENSE
(Failure to State of Claim - FRCP 12(b)(6))
36.

The preceding responses, not inconsistent herewith, are incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.
7

37.

The Complaint of the Plaintiff should be dismissed for failure to state

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff,
Fastcase, Inc., the Defendant, Lawriter, LLC dba Casemaker, demands:
(1)

that the Complaint of the Plaintiff be dismissed with prejudice;

(2)

for costs, expenses and fees associated with this action; and,

(4)

for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
By: s/ Kurt M. Rozelsky
Kurt M. Rozelsky (Bar No. 617932)
Joseph W. Rohe (Bar No. 727154)
2 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 87, Greenville, SC 29602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
April 12, 2016

8