Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6571, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2013) (Grady, Sen. J.).
Judge Grady granted in part plaintiff Flava Works’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendants’ (collectively “myVidster”) tortious interference and Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) claims in this copyright infringement suit involving videos posted on websites. To the extent the tortious interference claim was based upon the alleged wrongful filing of this suit it was dismissed because Illinois does not recognize a tortious interference claim based upon wrongfully filed suits. The claim, however, survived to the extent it was based upon Flava Works allegedly misrepresenting myVidster’s intellectual property infringement with the intent of causing myVidster’s server suppliers to terminate contracts with myVidster.
With respect to its DMCA claim, myVidster pled that Flava Works knowingly misrepresented that allegedly infringing content was available on myVidster to “improperly exaggerate the actual amount of infringing content available” on the website. Those allegations were sufficient to meet the intent requirement.
Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6517, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur granted defendant LeaseWeb USA (“LeaseWeb”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) & (6) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Flava Works pointed largely to Lease Web’s interactive website. But that website was not enough for general or specific jurisdiction. And LeaseWeb’s single Illinois customer was similarly insufficient. FlavaWorks offered no argument or proof that the customer was related to the alleged copyright infringement in this case.
The Court also dismissed LeaseWeb because FlavaWork’s complaint alleged no facts that would make it liable for copyright infringement.
Flava Works, Inc. v. Momient, No. 11 C 6306, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur denied plaintiff Flava Works’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant’s copyright infringement counterclaims. The fact that defendant did not plead the dates of the alleged copyright infringement was not fatal to the counterclaims. Flava Work’s statute of limitations argument was an affirmative defense and defendant was not required to plead facts refuting it as part of its counterclaims.
The Court also noted that pro se defendant’s periodic failure to appear for hearings has caused the case to move or not move in “fits and starts.” The Court “cautioned [defendant] . . . that such inattention could prove costly if repeated.”