Case Dismissed For Failure To Prosecute
Judge Gilstrap dismissed this copyright case brought by numerous plaintiffs against an individual defendant for failure to prosecute.
Judge Gilstrap dismissed this copyright case brought by numerous plaintiffs against an individual defendant for failure to prosecute.
This 37 page order provides a detailed analysis of the court’s $390,000 damages award, which also included $366,000 in prejudgment interest, costs (including attorneys fees) and other provisions.
Judge Mazzant granted the plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt due to the defendant’s violations of the permanent injunction in this case based on infringing guitars, but declined to consider the arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief (helpfully noting that the plaintiff should “feel free to file a new motion for civil contempt” as to those issues).
The court affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted with prejudice as to the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims as to certain unregistered articles and certain requests for statutory damages.
The court actually granted the entire motion, but only the preempted claims – unfair competition, conversion, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment – were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, but with leave to amend.
The court recommended granting this motion as to the plaintiff’s claims against one defendant for failure to plead sufficient acts that that defendant committed to infringe the copyright or violate the DMCA, but denial of the remaining grounds.
Judge Pitman dismissed several of the counterclaims, including conversion, minority shareholder oppression, and fraud, finding any attempt to amend the first two would be futile, but permitted re-pleading of the last.
Plaintiff alleged that Nickelback’s song Rockstar infringed a song he wrote. The court disagreed, finding that there was not a genuine dispute for trial as to copying.
The magistrate judge in this Austin Division case concluded that the proposed transferee venue was not clearly more convenient, discussing the relevant factors under Fifth Circuit law, including as set out in In re Planned Parenthood and Texas district court caselaw on the convenience factors. The difference between the analysis in this case under Fifth Circuit law and in patent cases under Federal Circuit caselaw was striking.
The court rejected the defendant’s attempts to limit the characterization of the case for which judgment was being entered, or otherwise limit the routine language the court was being asked to enter as the final judgment.