Twows, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedApril 7, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00139
StatusUnknown

This text of Twows, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Twows, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Twows, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CASE NO. 8:23-cv-00139-WFJ-MRM

TWOWS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A,”

Defendants. /

ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff, TWOWS, LLC (“Plaintiff”), previously moved ex parte for entry of a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 10) against the Defendants, Individual Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” to the Complaint,1 which the Court granted on February 15, 2023. (Dkt. 11) The Court’s temporary restraining order set a March 1, 2023 telephonic hearing to afford Defendants an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the temporary restraining order and to hear arguments on Plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 11), at 17. Plaintiff moved to extend the temporary restraining order

1 Schedule “A” was filed under seal. (Dkt. 8) pursuant to the Court’s Order. (Dkt. 7). and reschedule the hearing so it could effectuate service on the Defendants (Dkt. 13), which the Court granted and reset the telephonic hearing for March 15, 2023. (Dkt. 14). After receiving third-party discovery from the online platforms on which the

Defendants are operating, Plaintiff served Defendants on March 2, 2023 copies of the Complaint, the issued summons, the Court’s temporary restraining order in accordance with the Court’s order authorizing alternative service by e-mail and publication, and the Court’s notice of the rescheduled hearing. (Dkt. 18). No Defendant appeared at the March 15, 2023 hearing, and the Court extended

the hearing and the temporary restraining order to April 6, 2023. (Dkt. 23). The Court also unsealed the record on March 14, 2023. (Dkt. 20). A second telephonic hearing was held on April 6, 2023, and again no Defendant appeared. (Dkt. 40). Having reviewed the Motion and heard argument, and Defendants having been given notice of Plaintiff’s Motion and the Court’s hearings, for the reasons stated

below Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is the owner of the following copyright registered in the United States of America (the “Copyrighted Work”):

Registration Registration Title of Work Number Date PA0001872685 2013-12-26 The Wolf of Wall Street

See Declaration of Randy Hermann (“Hermann Decl.”) (Dkt. 10-1) at ¶ 5; see also Complaint (Dkt. 1), at ¶ 20. The Defendants, through the various Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the seller identities identified on Schedule “A” to the Complaint (the “Seller IDs”), have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold goods bearing

and/or using what the Plaintiff has determined to be infringements, reproductions, or derivatives of the Copyrighted Work. See Hermann Decl. at ¶¶ 10-13; Declaration of A. Robert Weaver in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO (“Weaver TRO Decl.”) (Dkt. 10-2) at ¶ 5. The Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licensed

to use, reproduce, or make reproductions, or derivatives of the Copyrighted Work. See Hermann Decl. at ¶ 10. The Plaintiff investigated the promotion and sale of infringing products bearing unlicensed reproductions or derivatives of the Copyrighted Work. See Hermann Decl. at ¶¶ 10-13. Plaintiff accessed each of the e-commerce stores operating under the

Defendants’ Seller IDs, initiated the ordering process for the purchase of a product from each of the Seller IDs, bearing infringements of the Copyrighted Work at issue in this action, and requested each product to be shipped to an address in the State of Florida. See id.; see also Weaver Decl. at ¶ 5. The Plaintiff conducted a review and

visually inspected the products bearing the Copyrighted Work for which orders were initiated by Plaintiff’s third party investigator via the Seller IDs and determined the products contained nongenuine, unauthorized reproductions and/or derivatives of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work. See id. II. LEGAL STANDARD The standard to obtain a preliminary injunction is the same as to obtain a temporary restraining order, which is that a party must demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the

relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the nonmovant; and (4) that the entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. Rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995) (applying the test to a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act case).

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above finding of facts support the following conclusions of law: A. Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie showing that this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Defendants, alleged to be residing

or operating in outside the United States, and are alleged to have committed a tortious act within the state of Florida in satisfaction of Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(b). Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008). Additionally, jurisdiction is properly pled pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), the federal long arm statute, because Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal U.S. Copyright Law and Defendants have not consented to

jurisdiction in another state. Viahart, LLC v. Does 1-54, 2022 WL 4138590, *9-10 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2022). B. Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie showing that venue is proper in this District because, for venue purposes, “a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3); Island International Limited v. Island Stone India Private Limited, 2017 WL 1437464, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2017) (in a trademark infringement action against an foreign resident, “for venue purposes, a lawsuit against him may be brough in any judicial district, including

the Middle District of Florida.”). C. Joinder of the Defendants in Schedule “A” continues to be appropriate under Rule 20(a) at this still early stage of the proceeding to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action. Malibu Media LLC v. Does 1-28, 295 F.R.D. 527, 531 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.). Joinder is proper because

Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants “arise out of the same transaction or occurrence” because Plaintiff has alleged a logical connection between each Defendant, namely the “occurrence of mass harm” resulting from Defendants concerted efforts to anonymously commit copyright infringement through the online platforms. Bose Corp. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule

“A,” 334 F.R.D. 511, 517 (N.D. Ill. 2020).. D. The Plaintiff has a strong probability of proving at trial that: a) it is the owner of a valid copyright; and b) the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale contain unauthorized reproductions and derivatives of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work. Compulife Software Inc. v.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Twows, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twows-llc-v-the-individuals-partnerships-and-unincorporated-flmd-2023.