Criminal Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying Defendant Olena Wilson's 18 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Defendant via U.S. Mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C17-102 RAJ
v.
ORDER
OLENA WILSON and SHARON KLINE,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Olena Wilson’s Motion to

INTRODUCTION

16
Dismiss. Dkt. # 18. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Dkt. # 20. For the reasons set forth
17
18

below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 18.

19

II.

20

Plaintiff Criminal Productions, Inc. filed this case against Defendants alleging that

21

BACKGROUND

they infringed on its copyright to the motion picture, Criminal, by illegally downloading

22
23

the movie using a “peer-to-peer” (“P2P”) or BitTorrent file network. Users of BitTorrent

24

file networks use online pseudonyms (“user names” or “network names”). At the time of

25

filing, Plaintiff identified Defendants by their Internet Protocol (“IP”) address and the

26
27
28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4

date and time of the alleged infringement. Plaintiff then used information from a nonparty Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to determine Defendant’s names. Dkt. # 20.
Defendant Olena Wilson, proceeding pro se, now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint. As Defendant does not cite to any legal authority in her Motion, the Court

5
6

construes it as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

7

III.

8

A. FRCP 12(b)(6)

9

LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

10
11

claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual

12

allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v.

13

Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true conclusory

14

allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v.

15
16

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must

17

point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell

18

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint

19

avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the

20
21
22
23
24

complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009).
A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the
complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the

25
26

document is central to the party’s claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder v.

27

Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence subject to

28

ORDER – 2

1

judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

IV.

3

Ms. Wilson argues that she was not properly named as Defendant in this case

4

DISCUSSION

because she did not download the movie at issue, that she is located in a housing

5
6

development with access to at least eleven (11) Wi-Fi networks from her home, that her

7

personal Wi-Fi network was password-protected with a default password, and that she

8

believes that the evidence naming her as Defendant in this case is insufficient because of

9

the existence of Malware and other methods used by hackers to route data through other

10
11
12
13
14

IP addresses.
To state a claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiff must establish: (1) ownership
of a valid copyright; and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are
original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servs. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Plaintiff

15
16

has alleged that it owns a valid and registered copyright in the Criminal film. Dkt. # 14

17

¶¶ 6-7; Dkt. # 14 Ex. A. This “is considered prima facie evidence of the validity of the

18

copyright.” Syntek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 781

19

(9th Cir. 2002); see also 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Having alleged ownership and filed a

20
21
22
23
24

certificate of registration, Plaintiff has established the first element.
Plaintiff alleges that Comcast assigned a distinct IP address to Wilson. Dkt. # 14
¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that this IP address “was observed infringing Plaintiff’s motion
picture” on a specific date and at a specific time. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff further alleges that

25
26

the “physical makeup and layout” of Defendant’s residence and neighborhood and the

27

“standard security measures imposed by the ISP” prevent unauthorized use of an IP

28

ORDER – 3

1

address and make it unlikely that a wireless signal was “high jacked by someone outside

2

of the residence”. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff also alleges that the infringing activity was not an

3

isolated incident and would have diminished the bandwidth of Wilson’s Internet

4

connections such that she would likely have been aware that it was occurring. Id. ¶ 12.

5
6

To overcome a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Plaintiff

7

need only allege facts that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

8

550 U.S. at 568. Assuming that the allegations in the Amended Complaint are true, the

9

fact that Ms. Wilson’s IP address was observed engaging in “persistent” activity, that this

10
11

particular IP address was observed copying Criminal, and that the “physical makeup and

12

layout” of Ms. Wilson’s residence allegedly makes it unlikely that her wireless signal was

13

used by someone outside of the residence, all sufficiently support Plaintiff’s claim that

14

Ms. Wilson copied elements of the copyrighted work. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to

15
16

Dismiss is DENIED.

17

V.

18

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

19

CONCLUSION

Dkt. # 18.

20
21

DATED this 8th day of January, 2018.

22
23

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27
28

ORDER – 4