Obodai v. Cracked Entertainment Inc.

Second Circuit

Obodai v. Cracked Entertainment Inc.

522 F. App'x 41

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2013

Docket12-2450

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 522 F. App'x 41 (Obodai v. Cracked Entertainment Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Obodai v. Cracked Entertainment Inc., 522 F. App'x 41 (2d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Austin Obodai, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant *42 of summary judgment in favor of Demand Media Inc. (“Demand Media”), dismissing his copyright infringement action, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon conducting such a review, we conclude that Obodai’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned summary judgment decision. See Obodai v. Demand Media Inc., No. 11-cv-2503, 2012 WL 2189740 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012). In short, the district court correctly determined that Demand Media was eligible for the User Storage Safe Harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, because the undisputed evidence established that Demand Media satisfied the requirements under § 512(c) and (i). The record does not support Obodai’s assertion that Demand Media’s use of the software tool “Tynt” required the district court to reach a different result.

We have considered Obodai’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Austin Obodai, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant *42 of summary judgment in favor of Demand Media Inc. (“Demand Media”), dismissing his copyright infringement action, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon conducting such a review, we conclude that Obodai’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned summary judgment decision. See Obodai v. Demand Media Inc., No. 11-cv-2503, 2012 WL 2189740 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012). In short, the district court correctly determined that Demand Media was eligible for the User Storage Safe Harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, because the undisputed evidence established that Demand Media satisfied the requirements under § 512(c) and (i). The record does not support Obodai’s assertion that Demand Media’s use of the software tool “Tynt” required the district court to reach a different result.

We have considered Obodai’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 F. App'x 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obodai-v-cracked-entertainment-inc-ca2-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack