Law N Motion

Patrick Robinson’s lawyers filed a Motion for Clarification of Order Consolidating Cases and the court ruled on the papers without oral arguments. In the moving papers, Robinson asked for clarification of the court’s order regarding the consolidated cases. “Defendant’s request clarification regarding the deadline to respond to the complaints, and additionally request that they be permitted to seek partial dismissal of the complaint that Plaintiffs be required to amend the complaints based on, among other things, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019).” The court partially granted and partially denied defendant’s requests. The Court points out that in each of Plaintiff’s four operative complaints, Plaintiff refers to “pending copyright registration applications.” Under Fourth Estate, Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert copyright infringement claims for works where the applications remai...

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...

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 ...

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...

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...