Promedev LLC v. Wilson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 26, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01063
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 PROMEDEV, LLC, CASE NO. C22-1063JLR 11 Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE ORDER v. 12 ROBY WILSON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Promedev, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. 16 (Mot. (Dkt. # 72); Reply (Dkt. # 84).) Defendants Roby Wilson, MaXXiMedia 17 Advertising Co., and Imagipix Corporation (together, “Defendants”) oppose the motion. 18 (Resp. (Dkt. # 81).) The court issues the following show cause order regarding 19 Defendants’ claim for copyright infringement. 20 Promedev moves for summary judgment on Defendants’ claim for copyright 21 infringement. (Mot. at 7-15.) Defendants argue that Promedev’s motion ignores “well 22 over a hundred advertisements created.” (Resp. at 8.) The court requires clarification. 1 To establish a claim for copyright infringement, “two elements must be proven: 2 (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work

3 that are original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). 4 To satisfy the first element, the claimant must have a valid copyright registration. 17 5 U.S.C. § 411(a); Fourth Est. Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. ---, 6 139 S. Ct. 881, 886 (2019) (“Before pursuing an infringement claim in court, . . . a 7 copyright claimant generally must comply with §411(a)’s requirement that ‘registration 8 of the copyright claim has been made.’” (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 411)); see also Douglas v.

9 Warner Bros. Film, No. 2:23-cv-02320-TLN-CKD (PS), 2023 WL 7305275, at *2 (E.D. 10 Cal. Nov. 6, 2023) (holding that the plaintiff failed to state a copyright infringement claim 11 because he did not allege that he “own[ed] any copyrighted material that ha[d] been 12 registered”). 13 Defendants’ counterclaims list eight copyright registrations covering Promedev

14 commercials. (See Counterclaims (Dkt. # 25) ¶ 52.) Yet Defendants now suggest that 15 Promedev has infringed “well over a hundred advertisements” without citing a single 16 copyright registration. (Resp. at 8. See generally id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 56(f)(2) provides that the court may, “after giving notice and a reasonable time to 18 respond . . . grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

19 Thus, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why their claim for copyright 20 infringement should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to identify the registered 21 copyrights Promedev allegedly infringed. In particular, the court ORDERS Defendants 22 to provide evidence of the following: 1 1. The copyright registration numbers of all advertisements Promedev allegedly 2 infringed;

3 2. The date of each copyright registration; 4 3. The date(s) Promedev allegedly infringed each copyright; and 5 4. The platform and/or channel on which Promedev aired each allegedly infringing 6 advertisement (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, television (via Fox News)). 7 Defendants must do so by no later than 8 a.m. PDT on Thursday, March 28, 8 2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in the court granting summary

9 judgment on Defendants’ copyright infringement claim and dismissing that claim with 10 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). 11 Dated this 26th day of March, 2024. A 12 JAMES L. ROBART 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22