§Why CasetextPricing

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc. et al

REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claims and Defenses re Defendant Steadfast Networks LLC 296

14 Cited authorities

  1. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 662 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"

  2. Reilly v. Natwest Mkts. Grp. Inc.

    181 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 711 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial judges have wide discretion to impose sanctions for spoliation even in cases not involving "outrageous culpability"

  3. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 479 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"

  4. Perfect 10 v. Visa Intern

    494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 253 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court may "affirm on any ground supported by the record"

  5. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.

    76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 235 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operators of a swap meet who had reason to know of infringing activity after law enforcement officers raided the flea market and seized counterfeit merchandise may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement

  6. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions

    658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 148 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove willfulness in the copyright context, plaintiff must show that the defendant was actually aware of infringing activity, or that defendant's actions were the result of "reckless disregard" for, or "willful blindness" to, the copyright holder's rights

  7. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, Inc.

    907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 199 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operator of a computer bulletin board system that forwarded messages from subscribers to other subscribers was not liable for displaying copyrighted works because it took no role in controlling the content of the information but only acted as passive conduit of the information

  8. Rainey v. American Forest and Paper Ass'n, Inc.

    26 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 1998)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FWW requires contemporaneous overtime payment

  9. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc.

    213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 72 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding images and text on websites "are not statements at all—and thus fall outside the ambit of the hearsay rule"

  10. BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.

    149 F. Supp. 3d 634 (E.D. Va. 2015)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civil No. 1:14-cv-1611 12-01-2015 BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, and Round Hill Music LP, Plaintiffs, v. Cox Communications, Inc., and Coxcom, LLC, Defendants. Jeremy David Engle, Paul Gennari, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Walter Dekalb Kelley, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Craig Crandall Reilly, Law Office of Craig C. Reilly, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants. Liam O'Grady, United States District Judge Jeremy David Engle, Paul Gennari, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Walter Dekalb Kelley, Jr

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

    17 U.S.C. § 512   Cited 588 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

  13. Section 2257 - Record keeping requirements

    18 U.S.C. § 2257   Cited 112 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring producers to "ascertain ... the performer’s name and date of birth"