Dolores Press v Anthony Todd: Judgment is entered


As mentioned here before, Scott requested the court to enter Anthony Todd’s default judgment. According to the court, default was entered against Todd on May 16, 2019.



The default requested three things: 1) Statutory damages of $150,000.00 per infringed work 2) Attorney’s fees 3) permanent injunction against Todd.



Judge Klausner decided not to award the statutory maximum and instead awarded $750.00 per infringed work. Klausner also decided to limit the relief sought to only those works which were already registered within the copyright office of the Library of Congress, at the time the claim was filed. That brought the total number of works infringed down from 408, originally sought by Dolores Press, to 298. That brings the total amount of damages to $223,500.00. Although this is not the amount sought by Dolores Press, it is still quite a bit of money. Furthermore, Todd has been ordered to pay attorneys’ fees totaling $8,070.00. This is a statutory amount. According to the order, this amount is determined by California Central District Local Rule 55-3, wherein it states that: When a promissory note, contract or applicable statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees, those fees shall be calculated according to the following schedule (in part):

Over $100,000   $5600 plus 2% of the amount over $100,000



Judge Klausner effectively granted 100% of the requested attorney’s fees after adjusting the amount for which the defendant was liable, for copyright infringement.



Judge Klausner denied Dolores Press’ request for permanent injunction because Dolores Press did not prove Todd’s continuing infringement. Furthermore, Dolores Press gave the judge conflicting requests; In the complaint, Dolores Press requested the court to order Todd to destroy all the infringed files which he has in his possession. In the application for default judgement, Dolores Press changed it’s request for the judge to order Todd to preserve all the files.



The conclusion of the order is as follows: The court grants in part and denies in part, Plaintiff’s application for entry of default judgment.



This is an undeniable victory for Melissa Scott and Dolores Press. Todd escaped some consequences because of clerical errors. But for Judge Klausner showing mercy, due to said clerical errors, Todd would be in big trouble. Nevertheless, Todd is liable for statutory damages of $223,500.00 and attorneys’ fees of $8,070.00 and this isn’t a small amount of money.



This is the first defendant of the newly consolidated cases to fall. Now we must wait for the remainder of the cases to proceed. There is still no answer to Dolores Press’ first filed case. This is very confusing. Robinson has been heard claiming that he’s anxious to get the cases going. He even tried to file his own motion for consolidation, saying: “…Carlos didn’t think they’d go for it but they were just trying to get the ball rolling on getting something done…”, but since the court ordered consolidation on August 13, 2019 he still hasn’t filed an answer in this case. First, Robinson delayed answering by filing a motion for more definite statement, which was denied. He has since filed a second Rule 12 motion for clarification. This is in violation of the rules of court. All Rule 12 motions for clarification should be filed together (Rule 12(g)(2). The only conclusion one can come to is, perhaps Robinson is stalling. Maybe they’ve since decided that the “naked license” “limited abandonment” theories do not hold water and they’re delaying filing an answer until all other options have been exhausted. This is suspicious since Robinson has a video wherein, he’s seemingly speaking to Scott and calling on her to just argue the case and stop with the procedural paperwork (FUMS 17 – Procedures? Lets argue the case lady.). But now it is him who is filing procedural paperwork and refusing to answer. Robinson has displayed the utmost confidence in his “naked license” “limited abandonment” defense. Is he not as confident in this defense as he once was? One can only speculate that Robinson is stalling. Perhaps he’s even scared to proceed. It’s all a matter of time now. Everyone will see who is victorious, there will be a ruling, one way or another. Stay tuned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Patrick Robinson Going to Free Up Dr. Gene Scott's Copyrights?

Will an effective defense by Patrick Robinson in a copyright infringement case “free up the copyrights” of Dr. Gene Scott’s works? Read on to find out the answer. I’ve been watching this battle play out with concern, as should anyone with an interest in copyright law, whether they be a small-time production or even Walt Disney Company. The claims being made, and defenses raised in this complicated issue of copyright infringement and claims of copyright abandonment could have a wide range of effects on copyright law. But are any of them favorable to Patrick Robinson’s group? This case has gone up and down the proverbial field of play, from the initial copyright infringement cases being dismissed to the abandonment theory being defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. You may be asking, what is a motion for summary judgment, let alone a cross-motion? It’s not that difficult to understand and I’ll walk you through it if you’ll read on. On one side of the playi
Read more

Patrick Robinson Gives an Update in His FUMS #41

In his FUMS #41 video Patrick Robinson gives another victory update. But is this an accurate report? It is correct that the court did rule on the motion for consolidation. This was a motion brought by Dolores/Scott and opposed by Robinson. Therefore, I cannot comprehend Robinson’s update. In the video, Robinson says a few things that are inaccurate: 1) The cases are being consolidated under his first case. 2) Robinson acts like this consolidation is a victory for his group. 3) The undisputed fact that “It is undisputed that Dr. Gene Scott permitted downloads and encouraged the sharing and distribution of his teachings.” The first point is false. The cases are being assigned under Dolores Press’ first filed case, as evidenced by the court’s order Granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Consolidation, document 164 filed on 08/13/2019 page 4 of 4, wherein the Judge ordered the cases be consolidated under: Dolores Press Inc. v Patrick Robinson, et al. 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA. Furthe
Read more

Did Anthony Todd Testify Against Himself?

Is it possible to testify against yourself in a trial in which you did not appear? Anthony Todd may find out soon enough. On Friday, September 27, 2019 Melissa Scott’s attorneys filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the denied injunction against Todd. In Scott’s proposed judgment it was requested that Todd be enjoined from further infringement, and among other things, for Todd to preserve every file of Dr. Scott’s works. Judge Klausner denied the injunction reasoning that Scott had not proven that Todd was likely to continue to infringe. He further denied the preservation of all files because that was not what the complaint requested. In Friday’s moving papers, Scott’s attorneys request the Judge reconsider his previous orders and issue the injunction. The documents contain screenshots of Posts by Todd wherein he is conversing with other people online in google groups and Facebook. In these posts Todd promises Scott that he will not stop sharing the files
Read more