Filed July 22, 2013
Id. Case 8:13-cv-00517-CJC-JPR Document 13 Filed 07/22/13 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LIVEJOURNAL INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP See Luvdarts, 710 F.3d at 1072 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.) Luvdarts’ “application to this case” is clear.
Filed May 11, 2015
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) concerns a defendant search engine that provided linking to infringing material. Luvdarts, LLC, 710 F.3d at 1068, discussed supra, concerns a defendant telephone network on which users distributed, without permission, plaintiff's greeting card messages. Finally, Miller, 2010 WL 1292708, also mentioned supra, concerns allegations that Facebook infringed plaintiff's copyright by reproducing and distributing plaintiff's game.
Filed April 4, 2016
Declines to exercise a right to stop or limit it. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 931 n. 9 (2005); Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2013). Claim 4 (“Right of Attribution”): Plaintiff has not identified any legal basis for this claim and did not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment in their favor on this claim.
Filed June 25, 2014
Similarly, in Luvdarts, plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing defendants had knowledge of the allegedly infringing activity. Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 2013). As described above, plaintiffs’ complaint contains neither of these defects and, to the contrary, alleges facts sufficient to support every element of a claim for contributory infringement.
Filed May 19, 2014
Nor can he dispute that dismissal at the 12(b)(6) stage is proper when this standard is not met. Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff does not explain how Amazon’s practical ability to assess the copyright status of every product and every image that users post on its platform is different from that of Google in Perfect 10.
Filed July 8, 2013
Case 8:13-cv-00517-CJC-JPR Document 12 Filed 07/08/13 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:124 9 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Luvdarts does not change the analysis LiveJournal tries to escape this straight-forward application of the longstanding Fonovisa precedent by citing to Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013), and arguing that Mavrix must allege specific knowledge of the specific infringements at issue in this case. Motion at 10.
Filed February 13, 2015
The Luvdarts case that Defendants cite for its “actual knowledge” proposition relies upon Napster, which correctly sets forth both parts of the “knew or had reason to know” standard for contributory infringement. 710 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013). Case 1:14-cv-13870-RGS Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 38 of 40 -31- REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), Plaintiffs respectfully request oral argument on this motion.
Filed January 16, 2015
This, too, is insufficient as a matter of law. See Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal where mobile greeting card distributor alleged wireless carriers did nothing to stop users from sharing cards multiple times; “conclusory allegations that the Carriers had the required knowledge of infringement are plainly insufficient”). “[A]ctual knowledge of specific acts of infringement is required for contributory infringement liability.”
Filed August 5, 2013
Even more recently, in March, the Ninth Circuit held that there must be a requisite amount of supervision of the network to give rise to contributory infringement. Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013). It is evident that PHE is attempting to suggest it has a cause of action that is neither plead, nor having any merit in order to gain a toehold for relevancy. This specious position, not even adopted in a pleading, should not suddenly provide that toehold. For these reasons, and those of the Motion, it is requested that the Motion to Quash be granted as seeking irrelevant information.