Another Victory for Melissa Scott (Scott v Todd)
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 attorneys’ fees are
calculated by statute: According to 17 U.S.C. §505 the prevailing party may
collect reasonable attorneys’ fees according to applicable statute. Rule 55-3
provides a schedule for reasonable attorneys’ fees that are $5,600 plus 2% of
$61,200,000 for a total of $1,229,600.
The injunctive relief sought by
Scott, in addition to the monetary relief, seems reasonable. It’s a basic
injunction to prevent the further infringement of copyrights and preservation
of all the evidence. This is for discovery purposes. Scott has a right to
review the hard drives and devices of the defendant. If there is any conspiracy
by the defendant with any other defendants in the other cases, Scott can obtain
proof with this injunction.
It would be prudent of any
defendants to file an answer to a complaint, or at least a motion to dismiss.
To ignore a complaint will result in a default. This is no laughing matter. Todd
is looking at severe consequences for ignoring the lawsuit. He may think that
there is nothing that can be done to him. Perhaps he thinks that he can get the
default set aside. If Todd can prove good cause, he could request the court to
set aside the default. At this point, I am not sure Todd would be able to prove
good cause. He was properly served a complaint and summons and he had about 3
months to respond before Scott requested his default be entered. It appears
that he was negligent without excuse, but this is speculative. Without Todd’s
answer or any other information, I cannot determine if Todd has good cause.
There are many people in online forums who
insist that Scott has lost all her cases. I am not reaching the same
conclusion. I see that Scott has prevailed in Scott v Briggs, and Scott v Todd.
Scott has also prevailed in her appeals against Patrick Robinson and Doc’s
Dream. It appears Scott has been victorious in all cases thus far. Perhaps I’m
reading the adversaries responses and they are insisting, out of emotion, that
Scott has lost each case. The reality will become apparent in due time.
Comments
Post a Comment