Promedev LLC v. Wilson et al
Filing
86
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why their claim for copyright infringement should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to identify the registered copyrights Promedev allegedly infringed. Defendants must do so by no later than 8 a.m. PDT on Thursday, March 28, 2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in the court granting summary judgment on Defendants' copyright infringement claim and dismissing that claim with prejudice. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
PROMEDEV, LLC,
11
v.
12
13
Plaintiff,
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
ROBY WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
CASE NO. C22-1063JLR
Before the court is Plaintiff Promedev, LLC’s motion for summary judgment.
16
(Mot. (Dkt. # 72); Reply (Dkt. # 84).) Defendants Roby Wilson, MaXXiMedia
17
Advertising Co., and Imagipix Corporation (together, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.
18
(Resp. (Dkt. # 81).) The court issues the following show cause order regarding
19
Defendants’ claim for copyright infringement.
20
Promedev moves for summary judgment on Defendants’ claim for copyright
21
infringement. (Mot. at 7-15.) Defendants argue that Promedev’s motion ignores “well
22
over a hundred advertisements created.” (Resp. at 8.) The court requires clarification.
ORDER - 1
1
To establish a claim for copyright infringement, “two elements must be proven:
2
(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work
3
that are original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
4
To satisfy the first element, the claimant must have a valid copyright registration. 17
5
U.S.C. § 411(a); Fourth Est. Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. ---,
6
139 S. Ct. 881, 886 (2019) (“Before pursuing an infringement claim in court, . . . a
7
copyright claimant generally must comply with §411(a)’s requirement that ‘registration
8
of the copyright claim has been made.’” (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 411)); see also Douglas v.
9
Warner Bros. Film, No. 2:23-cv-02320-TLN-CKD (PS), 2023 WL 7305275, at *2 (E.D.
10
Cal. Nov. 6, 2023) (holding that the plaintiff failed to state a copyright infringement claim
11
because he did not allege that he “own[ed] any copyrighted material that ha[d] been
12
registered”).
13
Defendants’ counterclaims list eight copyright registrations covering Promedev
14
commercials. (See Counterclaims (Dkt. # 25) ¶ 52.) Yet Defendants now suggest that
15
Promedev has infringed “well over a hundred advertisements” without citing a single
16
copyright registration. (Resp. at 8. See generally id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17
56(f)(2) provides that the court may, “after giving notice and a reasonable time to
18
respond . . . grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
19
Thus, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why their claim for copyright
20
infringement should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to identify the registered
21
copyrights Promedev allegedly infringed. In particular, the court ORDERS Defendants
22
to provide evidence of the following:
ORDER - 2
1
2
1. The copyright registration numbers of all advertisements Promedev allegedly
infringed;
3
2. The date of each copyright registration;
4
3. The date(s) Promedev allegedly infringed each copyright; and
5
4. The platform and/or channel on which Promedev aired each allegedly infringing
6
advertisement (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, television (via Fox News)).
7
Defendants must do so by no later than 8 a.m. PDT on Thursday, March 28,
8
2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in the court granting summary
9
judgment on Defendants’ copyright infringement claim and dismissing that claim with
10
11
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
Dated this 26th day of March, 2024.
A
12
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?