Attorneys Dismissed, Motion for Summary Judgment Denied! Is this the Beginning of the End?

In late May, Carlos Leyva and Linda McAleer filed a motion stating that they had been dismissed by the defendants: Doc’s Dream, LLC., Truth Seekers, Inc., Patrick Robinson, Bobbi Jones, et al. On June 25, the motion was granted, and the attorneys of record for defendants were dismissed. On the court’s own motion, a separate Order to Show Cause was served upon the Defendants, ordering Doc’s Dream, LLC. and Truth Seekers, Inc. to obtain new legal counsel no later than July 10, 2020. This is based upon Local Rule 83-2.2.2 regarding Organizations and their inability to represent themselves. If Defendants fail to comply with the court’s order, they will have their answers stricken and their defaults entered. This would result in a default judgment against the two corporate defendants, in Plaintiffs favor, and the two corporations’ fate will be in the Judge’s hands.

 

Before the attorneys for the defense were dismissed, they filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). A party will file this type of motion when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(a)). If the moving party can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial, the case may be decided by an MSJ and trial would be proven unnecessary. The Court issued its denial of defendants’ MSJ. The defense fell short of proving their case; there was no evidence to support their claims. In fact, there were issues raised by the Plaintiffs which require a trial. The judge, Percy Anderson, stated in his order that “Defendants’ evidence is not sufficient for the court to rule as a matter of law…”. The Judge broke down each of the defendants’ defenses and stated his conclusions leading to the denial as follows:

 

Partial Abandonment

“Defendants argue that Dr. Scott partially abandoned some of his copyright interests. Specifically, the rights of reproduction, distribution, and display on the internet.”

 

The judge stated that “the court cannot conclude as a matter of law based on the evidence before it that, because Dr. Scott posted his Works for free on his own website, he abandoned any right to assert his copyright interest and prevent others from posting his Works on their own websites.” In addition, the court found that “there is a triable issue of fact as to whether some of the Works at issue were never published for free on Dr. Scott’s websites.”

 

The court is saying that the defendants did not prove, by their evidence, that Dr. Scott partially abandoned his copyrights. More importantly, the Court found that there must be a trial to decide whether the defendants are liable for copyright infringement of Works which were never posted on the Internet by Dr. Scott. The Defendants’ entire ‘Partial Abandonment’ defense is based upon the premise that the overt act indicating an intention to abandon his copyright was the posting of his Works for free on his website. If the Defendants posted Works which Dr. Scott never posted on his websites, the ‘partial abandonment’ defense will fail at trial. If the partial abandonment defense fails, the Defendants entire defense is lost.

 

Equitable Estoppel

Defendants argue that “for over nine years Dr. Scott made the Works freely available on the Internet for the consuming public to download, reproduce, display, perform and distribute, and he systematically encouraged the public to do so.” Defendants further argue that “during Dr. Scott’s lifetime he never sued any member of the consuming public for the conduct that he openly encouraged… it was not until his successor in interest, Ms. Scott, hijacked his ministry after Dr. Scott’s death, and began substituting her voice for his, that the copyright infringement suits… commenced.”

 

“[T]he Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law as to Defendants’ equitable estoppel defense… [because] Patrick Robinson… requested permission to share Dr. Scott’s works with his students online… After Melissa Scott refused his request and asserted her copyright interest in the Works, Patrick Robinson launched a website sharing Dr. Scott’s works in order to ‘stick it to the devil’ and ‘get the ball rolling in this legal battle.’ Because at least two of the defendants knew of the asserted copyright and posted the Works on their website despite this knowledge, it cannot be said as a matter of law, that Defendants relied to their detriment on Plaintiffs’ conduct.

 

Here, the Court ruled that the equitable estoppel affirmative defense was defeated because the Defendants did not rely upon the Plaintiffs’ statements. The Plaintiffs’ refused the Defendants’ request and the Defendants’ posted the Works anyway. The Defendants’ actions are contrary to their claim that they relied entirely upon the Plaintiffs’ statements and actions.

 

Copyright Misuse

“Defendants argue ‘Plaintiffs viewed Defendants as potential competitors in the use of the Works and therefore attempted to eliminate the competition by using the Copyright Act, not to seek infringement damages, but rather to deny Defendants their First Amendment rights to free speech, and thereby silence Competition.’ Defendants further state there is ‘ample additional evidence of Plaintiff’s copyright misuse beyond the contours of this case’ and that Plaintiffs’ ‘attempt at eliminating the competition by using the Copyright Act flies in the face of U.S. antitrust laws.’ Defendants do not put forth any of this supposed ‘ample evidence.’”

 

“The court finds there is insufficient evidence to establish that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs engaged in copyright misuse… Defendants do not allege that Plaintiffs were using the copyrighted Works to ‘prevent the development of competing products,’ but rather allege that the copyright prevented Defendants from using the copyrighted Works themselves – precisely what a copyright protection is meant to do… Nor do Defendants’ allegations suggest that Plaintiffs were ‘leveraging their monopoly to allow them to control areas outside their monopoly…”

 

What else can be said about this conclusion: The Court obliterated this affirmative defense and stated that Defendants made unsupported accusations against the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs not only did not misuse their copyright but used the protection exactly as it was intended.

It is apparent to all, except the Defendants, that the Plaintiffs are building a strong case of copyright infringement and they have begun to break down all of the defenses. This Order shows that the Defendants’ affirmative defenses are incapable of withstanding the Plaintiffs’ complaint. As shown above, the court dismantled these defenses on an MSJ briefing. Now that the Defendants are without legal counsel and they have chosen to proceed pro se, according to their noticed motion, it seems unlikely that they will be able to raise a more effective strategy at trial. It also appears that everything is coming undone for the Defendants at this moment: Attorneys dismissed, ordered to hire new counsel for corporate defendants, MSJ denied, and entering into the discovery phase of the case. All of these factors do not weigh in favor of the defendants. Unless they have a new strategy that they will be able to implement quickly, it seems to this author, that they are defeated. The Defendants can expect to be subpoenaed for depositions, have to produce documents, to answer interrogatories, face law and motion practice, go through trial preparation, file their trial briefs, and of course argue their case in front of a jury. Litigation practice is a specialty among attorneys, it is not going to be easy for the Defendants to navigate the coming events. It appears that this is the end of the beginning of the case and the beginning of the end for the Defendants.