Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 25, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-06154
StatusUnknown

This text of Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books (Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books) 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
Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PORTIA HARTENCIA JORDAN, Plaintiff, 22 Civ. 6154 (PAE)

~ ORDER - GOLDEN BRIDGE BOOKS, Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On January 23, 2023, the Court received, by email, the attached letter and exhibits from defendant Golden Bridge Books (“Golden Bridge”), in response to plaintiff Portia Hartencia Jordan’s (“Jordan”) motion for a temporary restraining order. Per the complaint, see Dkt. 1, Golden Bridge, the sole defendant in this case, is an entity, not an individual. Accordingly, Golden Bridge can defend itself in this lawsuit only if represented by counsel, as “a layperson may not represent a separate legal entity such as a corporation,” Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007). Golden Bridge’s letter does not indicate that it is represented by counsel, and no counsel for Golden Bridge has filed an appearance on CM/ECF., In light of Jordan’s pending motion for temporary relief, Golden Bridge, should it wish to be heard, is advised to promptly secure legal representation and for such counsel to formally appear on its behalf and set out Golden Bridge’s legal position on the pending motion, which the Court anticipates addressing in short order. Jordan is directed to file proof of service of this order on Golden Bridge by January 26, 2023. Insofar as Golden Bridge’s letter makes various factual representations of potential

relevance to Jordan’s motion, the Court would welcome a response from Jordan. Such a response is due January 30, 2023.

SO ORDERED. al fal A ye Any PAUL.A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge Dated: January 24, 2023 New York, New York

Date: January 23, 2023 From: Golden Bridge Books, Defendant To: Presiding Judge □ C.c: Mr. ROBERT M, DEWITTY, Plaintiff's lawyer □ Re: Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books, Case 1:22-cv-06154-PAE (SDNY) Your Honour, Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to defend our rights. We believe the Plaintiff's allegations were totally false and groundless, the “bait-and-switch prostitution sting entrapment approach used by the Plaintiff to "bait" book sellers into committing the copyright infringement crimes they would not otherwise perform might be unlawful and abusive, there were absolutely no copyright infringement crimes committed, and the dishonest Plaintiff might have perjured herself by manufacturing evidence and providing misleading information to the Court, for the □ following reasons: 1, Selling used books online is totally legal in the USA, including the Plaintiff's book in this case. It is not the same as selling drugs. As the Plaintiff has acknowledged in the Motion, the U.S. copyright laws stated clearly that "copies of previously purchased versions of copyrighted works may be resold without infringing copyrights". In fact, a quick online search shows that this book’s market value is very low ($7.59-38.67) and not in high demand. It is currently listed for sale on multiple online platforms at very low price (e.g., Amazon, Etsy, Abebooks, Alibris, etc), Please see the attached Exhibit A, B, C that shows three of the listings by different sellers on different platforms (list price $7.59, $8.67, sold price $7.80), Online record shows the books have been listed for a long time without any buyers (except the Plaintiff who pretended as.a "bait" buyer, of course). It is hard to believe that any business or individuals would try to make any counterfeit copies of this small cheap book that could not be possibly sold for any profits. If the Plaintiff had been accused of making counterfeit copies of some very cheap items that she could buy from the local : dollar stores for $1 easily, she would probably understand better how hurtful it is to our feeling now. 2. We are 100% sure that there were absolutely no copyright infringement crimes committed whatsoever. The key evidence the Plaintiff used in the case was the “Declaration of Robert M. Dewitty” (the rest pages were all assumptions without any solid evidence), which claimed that the Plaintiff had used the "bait-and-switch prostitution sting entrapment approach” to purchase two copies of the book from us on May 28, 2022, and then on July 18, 2022, However, we believe the dishonest Plaintiff might have perjured herself by manufacturing evidence and providing misleading information to the Court, Apparently, the Plaintiff has INTENTIONALLY omitted and hidden the following key information here: (1). Exhibit | only shows just one internal page of the book as proof that the book was “new”.

However, there were no images of the book cover, spine, and other pages that could easily show signs of wear and notes / highlighting, previous owner's name, ete. □ (2). There were no images of the second book and no similar allegations that the second book was “new”, which lead people to believe that it must be a used copy that could not be used to back up the Plaintiff's false allegations.

(3). The Plaintiff has provided misleading information to the Court and tried to deceive the Honorable Judge to believe that this was a very rare and expensive book, by INTENTIONALLY hiding the fact that this book’s market value is actually very low (list price $7.59, $8.67, sold □ price $7.86, as shown in Exhibit A, B, C). (4). The most important evidence that could back up the Plaintiff's allegations was mysteriously missing, i.e, the original shipping package cover that could clearly show the REAL book seller's name and address, which lead people to believe that the two books the Plaintiff had received must be sent by somebody else, not by Golden Bridge Books. Otherwise, it would certainly be used to back up the Plaintiffs allegations. Based on the reasons listed above, may it please this Court to order the Plaintiff to present this hidden VITAL information, ie., the original shipping package cover that could clearly show the REAL book seller's name was not "Golden Bridge Books”. :

3. To make a long story short and solve the puzzle, please let us briefly summarize what has ACTUALLY happened: (1). As acommon practice for online book sellers, Golden Bridge Books has cross-listed many legally published used books on some online marketplaces from our suppliers, partners, and other book sellers, which included the Plaintiff's book (similar to many Real Estate agents’ practice for selling properties listed by other agents). (2), The Plaintiff apparently noticed all these listings. However, instead of buying a copy of the book for $7 from one of the local US-based book sellers, the Plaintiffhad chosen to go beyond and use the "bait-and-switch prostitution sting entrapment approach” to send us the “Intent to Purchase” orders across the border for two copies of the book on May 28, 2022, and then on July 18, 2022. □ (3). Unsuspected and without realizing it was an “entrapment”, we diligently forwarded the oe orders to two US-based “Listing Book Agents” and asked them to fill the orders with good intention, Once confirmed, we made the payment on behalf of the Plaintiff to the sellers and clicked the “Will Ship” option on the order page and informed the dishonest fake buyer that the book was coming, If we knew it was an “entrapment”, we would cértainly have choosen the □ “Reject Order” option and canceled the order. In fact, the Plaintiff's “Abe Exhibit A” could not possibly be used as a valid convincing evidence that the transaction did take place, as the buyer’s credit card had not been charged at this stage yet (there were also “Previously Sold, Increase

Shipping Fee, On Hold” options, etc), and the merchant who had received the Plaintiff's credit card payment was certainly not "Golden Bridge Books", (4). The unsuspected US-based “Listing Book Agents” then shipped the two books to the Plaintiff directly with good intention.

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

Related

Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-golden-bridge-books-nysd-2023.