Law N Motion

Melissa Scott (Scott) has won another victory by default. Scott filed suit against Anthony Todd (Todd) in October 2018 for copyright infringement. Todd failed to respond, and Scott requested the clerk of the court to enter Todd’s default, and default was entered the next day. Scott has now filed the motion for Default Judgment. Scott is seeking judgment in the amount of $61,200,000 in statutory damages in addition to $1,229,600 in attorney’s fees. The procedures of a default judgment are straight forward: all allegations within the complaint are deemed factual. The ownership of copyrights by Scott are valid, each allegation of copyright infringement is factual and willful. With the allegations within the complaint deemed factual, the only remaining issues are damages. Scott is seeking the statutory damages of $150,000 per willful infringement. Based upon the complaint of 408 infringed works, Scott is asking the court to hold Todd liable for $61.2 million in damages. The

Melissa Scott has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Timothy Briggs. According to the filings, Scott has decided to take Briggs’ default after settlement discussions failed. Scott is seeking the statutory damages for the infringements, which is $150,000 for each work. The complaint alleges 125 works were infringed, entitling Scott to $18,750,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs of $31,767.93. Because Briggs failed to file a timely Answer to Scott’s Complaint, he has not appeared in the action. At this stage, Briggs has forfeited his right to be heard in court. Therefore, Scott can ask for any damages and there is no opposition. This is a bad position to be in for Briggs. This is why you always want to appear in the action and be heard. At least you can make your arguments against the opposing party, even if you are unsuccessful. But now Briggs is liable, even if he had a valid defense against the infringement cause of action. It’s too late for any defenses, all Br

For anyone keeping up, there has been little action in the cases. What has been going on are the different Motions to Consolidate Cases. If anyone remembers, I commented on Doc’s Dream, LLC. attempt to revive their case in their Motion to Consolidate Cases. This attempt was thwarted when the motion was denied because Doc’s Dream’s case was closed after the appeals court affirmed the district court’s order granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dolores Press has now filed their Motion to Consolidate Cases. Dolores Press is seeking to consolidate, as they identify them, Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson I), Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson II), Dolores Press, Inc. v Jones (Jones I), and the cross complaint in Doc’s Dream, LLC v Dolores Press, Inc. (DD Action). These are the cases that Dolores Press brought against Patrick Robinson, Bobbi Jones, and Doc’s Dream, LLC which the district court dismissed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the dismiss