Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown Party

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 3, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-03383
StatusUnknown

This text of Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown Party (Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown Party) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

9 Fornix Holdings LLC, et al., No. CV-24-03383-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Unknown Party, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Plaintiffs Fornix Holdings LLC and CP Productions Inc. filed their complaint and 16 an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order through counsel admitted pro hac vice 17 to this court. (Doc. 1, 5.) The motion for a temporary restraining order is twenty pages, 18 excluding the table of contents and table of authorities. (Doc. 5-1.) Local Rule 7.2(e) states 19 a motion may not exceed seventeen pages. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to exceed the page 20 limits and no extension would be appropriate. The motion for a temporary restraining order 21 is therefore denied without prejudice. If plaintiffs file a renewed motion, they must comply 22 with the applicable page limit. Any renewed motion also must address the issues regarding 23 scope of relief and orders aimed at non-parties explained below. 24 Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the unknown defendant responsible for operating 25 erome.com. Plaintiffs describe erome.com as “a hosting or tube site” that allows 26 “individuals to upload, store, and share . . . videos and images.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) Plaintiffs 27 own or license registered copyrights in various adult videos and unknown individuals have 28 uploaded copies of those videos to ercome.com. Based on plaintiffs’ description of 1 erome.com, it appears plaintiffs’ copyrighted works represent only a portion of the content 2 available on that site. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order nevertheless 3 requests the court require defendant “deactivate and prevent the transfer of the domain 4 name .” (Doc. 5-5 at 1.) Requiring the deactivation of the domain name 5 would have the effect of prohibiting defendant from using erome.com to host any other 6 videos, even those with no connection to plaintiffs. Disabling an entire domain name 7 because it displays some copyrighted material may be an overly broad form of relief. See 8 California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (in preliminary injunction context, 9 “[t]he scope of the remedy must be no broader and no narrower than necessary to redress 10 the injury shown by the plaintiff”). Any renewed motion for a temporary restraining order 11 must explain why deactivation of the domain name would be appropriate, even on a 12 temporary basis. 13 Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary retraining order asks the court to order non-parties 14 VeriSign, Inc., and Cloudflare, Inc., to take action. In an almost-identical case filed in 2022, 15 plaintiffs and their counsel were informed it would not be proper for a court to issue an 16 injunction requiring that non-parties take action. See Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown 17 Party, No. CV-22-00494-PHX-DLR, 2022 WL 992546, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2022). Any 18 renewed motion must explain plaintiffs’ basis for seeking relief against non-parties 19 considering the 2022 decision explain that doing so would be improper. 20 Finally, plaintiffs request permission to serve the summons and complaint via email. 21 (Doc. 5-1 at 22.) Plaintiffs state the only available contact information for defendant is an 22 email address because all other contact information “is withheld for privacy.” (Doc. 5-1 at 23 24.) Plaintiffs state they will need discovery to obtain additional contact information. (Doc. 24 5-1 at 24.) Plaintiffs have not established authorizing service by email would be appropriate 25 if, as plaintiffs represent, they would be able to locate additional contact information by 26 taking early discovery. Instead of authorizing alternative service, plaintiffs may conduct 27 the early discovery necessary to identify defendant. Cf. Columbia Ins. Co. v. 28 seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (discussing when early discovery 1 is merited). 2 IT IS ORDERED the Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 3 Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiffs may conduct early discovery to identify 5 defendant. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall comply with the following: 7 Governing Rules 8 Both counsel and pro se litigants must abide by the Rules of Practice of the U.S. 9 District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”) and the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. 11 Disclosure Statements 12 Full compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 is required by plaintiff(s) 13 and defendant(s). Rule 7.1(a)(1) requires any nongovernmental corporation to file a 14 disclosure statement identifying “any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation 15 owning 10% or more of its stock.” Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires a party in an action where 16 jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to file a disclosure statement 17 identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to 18 that party.” A Corporate Disclosure Statement form is available at 19 https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms/corporate-disclosure-statement. 20 Service Deadline 21 Service of the summons and complaint on each defendant located in the United 22 States must occur within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service 23 cannot occur within 90 days, a request for an extension may be filed before expiration of 24 the 90-day period. Any such request must set forth the reason why service has not been 25 accomplished and request a specific short additional period of time. If the Court believes 26 your reason constitutes “good cause,” it will authorize a brief additional period to 27 accomplish service. 28 Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk of Court, in the form of an affidavit, 1 promptly after service has been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). It is important to comply 2 with this requirement because absent proof of service, the Court will have no way of 3 knowing that the complaint has been served. 4 This order serves as an express warning that the Court will dismiss this action, 5 without further notice to plaintiff(s), with respect to any defendant that is not timely served. 6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 7 Forms of Papers 8 The parties shall adhere to all of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, including the 9 requirement that text and footnotes shall be no smaller than 13 point. Citations supporting 10 any textual proposition shall be included in the text, not in a footnote. 11 Paper Courtesy Copies 12 Do not send paper courtesy copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) 13 pleadings, short procedural motions (e.g., motions for extension of time), 26(f) reports, or 14 stipulations. A paper courtesy copy of dispositive motions (or other lengthy motions that 15 will be opposed) and any responses or replies thereto shall be either postmarked and mailed 16 to the judge or hand-delivered to the judge’s mailbox in the courthouse by the next business 17 day after the electronic filing. Do not attempt to deliver documents to the judge’s chambers. 18 Courtesy copies should be double-sided and include the ECF-generated header at the top 19 of each page.

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

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Columbia Insurance v. Seescandy.Com
185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. California, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown Party, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fornix-holdings-llc-v-unknown-party-azd-2024.