Saurikit, LLC v. CYDIA.COM

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 54 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, a Court-Ordered Settlement Conference by Saurikit, LLC. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 4/17/2012. (stas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

SAURIKIT, LLC

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CYDIA.COM
Defendant.

1:11cv888 (JCC/JFA)

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Saurikit,
LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the
alternative, a Court-Ordered Settlement Conference (the Motion)
[Dkt. 54].

For the following reasons, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

Background

Plaintiff brings an in rem action against the domain
name <cydia.com>, alleging violation of the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (the ACPA).

The

procedural history of this case was thoroughly presented in
Magistrate Judge Anderson’s November 21, 2011 Memorandum
Opinion.

[Dkt. 43.]
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 18, 2011,

seeking injunctive relief against the domain name <cydia.com>.

1

[Dkt. 1.]

Plaintiff sent a letter providing notice of violation

to the registrant of <cydia.com> by email and first class mail
[Dkt. 4] and, as directed by the Court, published notice of the
action on September 6, 2011 [Dkt. 7].

No response was received,

and on September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for entry
of default.

[Dkt. 9.]

Default was entered by the Clerk of the

Court on September 29, 2011.

[Dkt. 10.]

And on September 30,

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.

[Dkt. 11.]

On October 12, 2011, counsel made an appearance for
Defendant domain name <cydia.com>.

[Dkt. 14.]

Counsel filed a

motion to stay the default hearing, which states that “[o]n
October 10, 2011, Cykon Technology Limited, a Hong Kong company
and owner of the cydia.com domain name, engaged Blank Rome to
represent its interest in this in rem action.”

[Dkt. 15.]

Counsel also filed a late answer on October 18, 2011.
18.]

[Dkt.

The Answer states that Cykon Technology Limited (Cykon) is

the owner of the domain name <cydia.com>.
5, 12, 16.)

(Answer [Dkt. 18] ¶¶

The Answer is signed, “Counsel for CYDIA.COM.”

(Id.)
After the Court heard argument on the motion for
default judgment, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the
default and asked for leave to file an answer out of time.
[Dkts. 26, 29.]

After receiving opposition to those motions,

and after encouraging the parties to in good faith resolve the

2

dispute, the Court made a number of rulings.

The Court granted

the motion to set aside entry of default, provided certain
conditions were met [Dkt. 44], granted the motion for leave to
file answer out of time [Dkt. 45], and denied Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment [Dkt. 45].

In doing so, the Court

recognized that Cykon is the claimant in the instant case and
found that Cykon acted with reasonable promptness in response to
the default once it learned the Complaint had been filed.
Op. [Dkt. 43] at 3, 6.)

(Mem.

Thereafter, the Court entered a

Scheduling Order and discovery was served.

[Dkts. 48-50.]

On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion,
arguing that the Answer is ineffective because it was filed by
the domain name <cydia.com> and not by the owner of the domain
name, Cykon.

[Dkt. 54.]

Defendant filed Opposition on April 6,

2012 [Dkt. 57] and Plaintiff filed a Reply on April 11, 2012
[Dkt. 59].
Plaintiff’s Motion is now before this Court.
II.

Standard of Review

To ensure that each litigant receives a full and fair
hearing, courts will not grant a Rule 12(c) motion “unless the
movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact
remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”

O'Ryan v. Dehler Mfrg. Co., Inc., 99 F. Supp.

2d 714, 718 (E.D. Va. 2000)(“Judgment should be entered when the

3

pleadings, construing the facts in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, fail to state any cognizable claim for
relief, and the matter can, therefore, be decided as a matter of
law.”) (citing Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 329 (4th
Cir. 1997)).

In reviewing a Rule 12(c) motion, the “court is

required to view the facts presented in the pleadings and the
inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.”

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1368.

A motion for judgment on

the pleadings may be made “after the pleadings are closed but
early enough not to delay trial.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

The

standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as the
standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

See

Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 406 (4th
Cir. 2002).
III. Analysis
A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c),
Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings.
[Dkt. 55] at 2.)

(Pl.’s Mem.

Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to

judgment because there is no Answer on file by a “claimant.”
(Id.)

Plaintiff asserts this is the case because the Answer is

filed by the property itself, and not the owner of the property.
(Id.)

Plaintiff’s argument appears to hinge on the fact that

4

the Answer is signed, “Counsel for CYDIA.COM.”

Yet, the Answer

states that Cykon is the owner of the domain name, and earlier
pleadings explicitly state that “Cykon Technology Limited, a
Hong Kong company and owner of the cydia.com domain name,
engaged Blank Rome to represent its interest in this in rem
action.”

[Dkts. 15, 18.]
Plaintiff relies on Caesars World, Inc., v. Caesars-

Palace.com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 505, 508-09 (E.D. Va. Aug. 25,
2000), in which this Court recognized that the ACPA does not
specify procedures for claimants in an in rem action, and found
that “the answer should have been filed on behalf of claimant or
claimants seeking to assert their interests in the domain name.”
The Court reasoned that “as an inanimate thing, the domain name
could not and did not hire attorneys to file an answer.”

Id.

In that case, the defendant was refusing to identify the sponsor
of the litigation and refusing to participate in the discovery
process.

Id. at 506.

Thus, the Court’s rationale was grounded

in a concern about its ability to “determine the interests of
certain persons to [the] res.”

Id.

The Court in Caesars World,

Inc. noted that, “[a]s claimants, the persons or entities filing
the answer have reciprocal duties to engage in discovery . . .
.”

Id.
Here, unlike the defendants in Caesars World, Cykon

has continuously taken the steps required of it in order to come

5

forward and argue its ownership interest in the res.
[Dkt. 57] at 3.)

(Opp.

Cykon has engaged Plaintiff in the discovery

process and settlement negotiations.

(Id.)

And, unlike Caesars

World, there is no question from the face of the pleadings that
Cykon is the owner of the domain name and is a claimant in this
case.1

The Court confirmed this when it addressed the motion to

set aside the entry of default and ordered Cykon to meet certain
conditions regarding the domain name.

[Dkt. 44.]

Thus, nothing

in Caesars World compels a rule that Cykon present its pleadings
or sign its Answer any differently than it did in this case.
This Court finds that Cykon’s Answer is sufficient and denies
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court notes that to the extent that Plaintiff asks
this Court to join Cykon as a party to the action, or compel
Cykon to appear in the U.S. for a deposition, those issues are
not properly before the Court on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
B. Motion for a Settlement Conference
Finally, Plaintiff requests that if Cykon is found to
be a claimant, this Court order a settlement conference pursuant
to Local Rule 83.6.

(Pl.’s Mem. at 5.)

1

Plaintiff argues that

Plaintiff fails to explain why its attempt to distinguish Cykon as a
claimant to the property versus a claimant in the litigation is meaningful
here. (Reply [Dkt. 59] at 1.) Plaintiff argues that Cykon has failed to
take the affirmative step of appearing as a claimant in the action. (Id.)
Yet, the only example that Plaintiff provides – Cykon’s alleged refusal to
appear in the United States for a deposition - relates to Cykon’s
participation in the discovery process and not the sufficiency of Cykon’s
Answer.

6

an in person mediation with Cykon would be beneficial because
“Cykon is simply too hard to communicate with regarding
settlement.”

(Id.)

Yet, Defendant submits that it has provided

a settlement counteroffer and is participating in discovery.
Absent additional evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
not shown why a mandatory settlement conference is necessary.
As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a
settlement conference.
IV.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s
Motion.
An appropriate Order will issue.

April 17, 2012
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7