Righthaven LLC v. Internet Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by Internet Brands, Inc.. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 9/11/2010. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 10/16/2010.(McCue, Michael)

1
2
3
4
5

Michael J. McCue (Nevada Bar No. 6055)
[e-mail]
Jonathan W. Fountain (Nevada Bar No. 10351)
[e-mail]
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
[phone] (tel.)
[phone] (fax)

6
7
8
9
10

Wendy Evelyn Giberti (Ca. Bar No. 268933)(pro hac vice pending)
[e-mail]
iGENERAL COUNSEL, P.C.
P.O. Box 3054
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
424-212-8718
Attorneys for Defendant
Internet Brands, Inc.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14

RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company,

Case No. 2:10-cv-01346

Plaintiff,

15

ANSWER BY DEFENDANT
INTERNET BRANDS, INC.

v.
16
17

INTERNET BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and CHUCK HOOVER, an
individual,

18
Defendants.
19

Defendant INTERNET BRANDS, INC. hereby answers the Complaint as follows:

20
21
22

NATURE OF ACTION
1.

paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

PARTIES
2.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

28
-1-

550034.1

1
2
3
4
5
6

4.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7

7.

Defendant Internet Brands hereby denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7

8

of the Complaint.

9

8.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies it proclaims ownership of the

10

copyright in material posted on its site by third parties. Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

11

admits it is the copyright owner of the Website, corvetteforum.com. Defendant Internet Brands,

12

Inc. hereby denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

13
14

9.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION

15
16

10.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits it is subject to personal jurisdiction

17

in this Court, and that this Court currently has subject matter jurisdiction, with respect to the

18

claims against Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the

19

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28

11.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in
-2-

550034.1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
VENUE

20
21

25.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the United States District Court for

22

the District of Nevada is an appropriate venue, but denies the remaining allegations contained in

23

paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

24
25
26
27

26.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
27.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby admits it is subject to personal jurisdiction

in Nevada, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28
-3-

550034.1

FACTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

28.

allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
30.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
31.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
32.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
33.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
34.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby denies the allegations contained in

paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

16
17

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

35.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. re-alleges and restates its responses in paragraphs

1-34 herein.
36.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
37.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
38.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
39.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
40.

The allegations contained in paragraph 40 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby
-4-

550034.1

1
2

denies the allegations contained therein.
41.

The allegations contained in paragraph 41 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

3

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

4

denies the allegations contained therein.

5

42.

The allegations contained in paragraph 42 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

6

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

7

denies the allegations contained therein.

8
9
10
11

43.

The allegations contained in paragraph 43 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby
denies the allegations contained therein.
44.

The allegations contained in paragraph 44 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

12

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

13

denies the allegations contained therein.

14

45.

The allegations contained in paragraph 45 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

15

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

16

denies the allegations contained therein.

17

46.

The allegations contained in paragraph 46 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

18

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

19

denies the allegations contained therein.

20

47.

The allegations contained in paragraph 47 set forth a legal conclusion to which no

21

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. hereby

22

denies the allegations contained therein.

23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28

48.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. specifically denies any allegation contained in the

Complaint, which Internet Brands, Inc. has not specifically admitted herein.
49.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. specifically denies that Righthaven is entitled to

any of the relief requested in the Prayer for Relief.
50.

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. prays that the Court dismiss this action and award

Defendant Internet Brands, Inc. its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this action.
-5-

550034.1

1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2

First Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff has failed to state any claim for which relief can be granted.

3
4

Second Affirmative Defense

5

Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on copyright misuse.

6

Third Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on the doctrine of fair use.

7

Fourth Affirmative Defense

8

Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on implied license.

9

Fifth Affirmative Defense

10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the alleged infringement was de minimis.

11
12

Sixth Affirmative Defense

13

Plaintiff’s claims are barred on based on unclean hands
Seventh Affirmative Defense

14

Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on estoppel.

15

Eighth Affirmative Defense

16

Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on estoppel.

17

Ninth Affirmative Defense

18

Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on acquiescence.

19

Tenth Affirmative Defense

20

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because, upon information and belief, Plaintiff

21
22

has failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense

23

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed based on champerty.

24

Twelfth Affirmative Defense

25

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed based on barratry.

26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28

///
///
-6-

550034.1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DATED: this 1st day of September, 2010.
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
By:_________/s/_________________________
Michael J. McCue
Jonathan W. Fountain
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
[phone] (tel.)
[phone] (fax)

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
Internet Brands, Inc.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28
-7-

550034.1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael McCue, hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing ANSWER to be
served visa ECF upon the following:
Steven A. Gibson
J. Charles Coons
Joseph C. Chu
RIGHTHAVEN LLC
9960 West Cheyenne Ave., Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89129-7701

8
9

Dated this 1st day of September, 2010.
______________/s/___________________
Michael McCue

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Lewis and Roca LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28
-8-

550034.1