Cawthon v. Yaoyage

S.D. New York

Cawthon v. Yaoyage

DecidedJune 17, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-07279

StatusUnknown

This text of Cawthon v. Yaoyage (Cawthon v. Yaoyage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cawthon v. Yaoyage, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SCOTT CAWTHON, 22-CV-7279 (JHR) (RFT) Plaintiff, -against- ORDER

YAOYAGE, Defendant.

ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge:

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Scott Cawthon moved for default judgment against Defendant Yaoyage on his claims of violations of the Copyright Act. (See ECF 45.) On May 16, 2025, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden referred to me the disposition of that motion. (See ECF 47.) “[B]efore a court grants a motion for default judgment, it may first assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 133 (2d. Cir. 2011). Plaintiff contends that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a resident of China, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) because, pursuant to the DMCA, Defendant submitted a Counter- Notice “consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of any judicial district in which Amazon can be found” (ECF 45, Mot. for Default J. at 1), which includes this District. However, Plaintiff previously filed on the docket correspondence with Amazon identifying deficiencies in Defendant’s Counter-Notice, including that Defendant did not consent to the jurisdiction of any district in which the service provider, in this case, Amazon, can be found. (See ECF 21-1, Amazon Correspondence at 2.) On nearly identical facts in another case brought by Plaintiff, the Court determined that this District did not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Cawthon v. Lishuang, No. 22-CV-7381 (JGLC) (SLC), 2024 WL 3813879 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2024) (concluding that the plaintiff had not “established that the Counter-Notice was ‘effective’ under the DMCA such that [the defendant] consented to this Court’s jurisdiction”), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4200389 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2024). It is ORDERED that, by June 24, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum addressing whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action and attaching as an exhibit a copy of the Counter-Notice on which Plaintiff relies. (See ECF 45, Mot. for Default J. at 1.)

DATED: June 17, 2025 New York, NY SO Gy ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SCOTT CAWTHON, 22-CV-7279 (JHR) (RFT) Plaintiff, -against- ORDER

YAOYAGE, Defendant.

ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge:

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Scott Cawthon moved for default judgment against Defendant Yaoyage on his claims of violations of the Copyright Act. (See ECF 45.) On May 16, 2025, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden referred to me the disposition of that motion. (See ECF 47.) “[B]efore a court grants a motion for default judgment, it may first assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 133 (2d. Cir. 2011). Plaintiff contends that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a resident of China, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) because, pursuant to the DMCA, Defendant submitted a Counter- Notice “consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of any judicial district in which Amazon can be found” (ECF 45, Mot. for Default J. at 1), which includes this District. However, Plaintiff previously filed on the docket correspondence with Amazon identifying deficiencies in Defendant’s Counter-Notice, including that Defendant did not consent to the jurisdiction of any district in which the service provider, in this case, Amazon, can be found. (See ECF 21-1, Amazon Correspondence at 2.) On nearly identical facts in another case brought by Plaintiff, the Court determined that this District did not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Cawthon v. Lishuang, No. 22-CV-7381 (JGLC) (SLC), 2024 WL 3813879 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2024) (concluding that the plaintiff had not “established that the Counter-Notice was ‘effective’ under the DMCA such that [the defendant] consented to this Court’s jurisdiction”), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4200389 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2024). It is ORDERED that, by June 24, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum addressing whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action and attaching as an exhibit a copy of the Counter-Notice on which Plaintiff relies. (See ECF 45, Mot. for Default J. at 1.)

DATED: June 17, 2025 New York, NY SO Gy ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cawthon v. Yaoyage, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cawthon-v-yaoyage-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack