Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
112687926-gov-uscourts-cod-132446-89-0

112687926-gov-uscourts-cod-132446-89-0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 54,826|Likes:
Published by J Doe

More info:

Published by: J Doe on Nov 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/26/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Case 1:12-cv-00886-MEH Document 89 Filed 10/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 123
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
FILED
tiNn'Eo
STATESDISTRICT
COURT
DENVER, COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1 12-cv-00886
f1EH
OCT
2
~
2012
JEFFREY
P.
COLWELL
CLERK
Malibu Media, LLC,Plaintiff,
v.
Jeff Fantalis and Bruce DunnDefendants.DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMDefendant, Jeff Fantalis, by way of Answer to the complaint of Malibu Media, LLC (the"Plaintiff"), says:Introduction
1
1.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff has any cause(s) of action against Defendant underthe United States Copyright Act of 1976 or under any other legislation or at commonlaw.
2.
Denied in its entirety, including the footnote.
3.
Defendant has no personal knowledge of any of the movies referred to by Plaintiff.
4.
Denied.
1
The headings
of
the
Complaint are used in this Answer solely
for the
convenience
of
the
Court. Defendant does
not
admit
any
of
Plaintiff's allegations by such use.
1
 
Case 1:12-cv-00886-MEH Document 89 Filed 10/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 123
Jurisdiction and Venue
5.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff has any cause of action against him; however,
he
admits that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over matters involving federalquestions and copyrights.
6.
Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph. Even
if
the
IP
address
in
question (184.96.0.193) was associated with the high-speed internet router located
in
Defendant's home
on
or about January
14,
2012, that fact would not give rise
to
jurisdiction over the Defendant's person.
An IP
address
is
not a person but adesignation assigned
to
a piece of technology, which can
be
accessed by multipleindividuals;
in
addition, in a process commonly known
as
"spoofing"
an
IP
addresscan
be
stolen or misused as follows: other devices can
be
configured with the same
IP
address or
an
individual can utilize technology
to
make his or her
ownIP
addressto appear to
be
another
IP
address.
7.
Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph, except to admit that
he
is aresident of the City of Louisville, County of Boulder, and State of Colorado.Defendant was not served with a Summons at the time of service of the Complaint,as required by the Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure. For all of these reasons,Plaintiff has failed to plead facts from which a reasonable trier of fact could concludethat this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, or that venue
is
properly laid
in
this district. Defendant has
no
personal knowledge as to relevant informationregarding the other defendants
in
this matter.Parties
8.
Defendant has
no
personal knowledge of these facts and can neither confirm nordeny and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs.
2
 
Case 1:12-cv-00886-MEH Document 89 Filed 10/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 123
9. Defendant admits that he is a resident of the state of Colorado. Defendant has noknowledge as to the
IP
address provided by Qwest/Centurylink.1
0.
Defendant has no personal knowledge of these facts and can neither confirm nordeny and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs.11. Defendant has no personal knowledge of these facts and can neither confirm nordeny and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs.12. Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph. Plaintiff's definition is incompleteand misleading.13. Defendant denies the allegations
of
this paragraph.Joinder14. Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph. Among other reasons, Plaintiff'sExhibit C demonstrates that the individual Defendants could not have, in fact, beeninvolved
in
"the exact same torrent file" or having "act[ed] in concert with each other"as alleged by the Plaintiff, as Exhibit C asserts infringement by the individualDefendants as having occurred on three distinct and separate dates. The factualsituations of the three defendants are individual, separate, distinct and unique. Theirlegal defenses and counterclaims are similarly going to be individual, separate,distinct and unique.Factual Background
I.
Plaintiff Owns The Copyright to a Motion Picture15. Defendant has no personal knowledge of these allegations and can neither confirmnor deny, and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs.16. Defendant has received a copy of the alleged copyright registrations as Exhibit
B.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->