Case1:11-cv-00830-JLKDocument49Filed
09/27/11
USDCColoradoPage1of14
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLORADOJudgeJohn
L.
KaneCivilActionNo.1:11-cv-00830-JLKRIGHTHAVENLLC,aNevadaLimitedLiabilityCompany,Plaintiff,
v.
LELANDWOLF,anindividual,andITMAKESSENSEBLOG,anentityofunknownoriginandnature,Defendants.MEMORANDUMOPINIONANDORDERKane,J.Theissuepresentedinthiscase,whetherapartywithabarerighttosuehasstandingtoinstituteanactionforinfringementunderfederalcopyrightlaw,isoneoffirstimpressionintheTenthCircuit.Afterconsideringtheparties'writtenandoralargumentsandanalyzingtheconstitutionalunderpinningsoffederalcopyrightlaw,thelegislativehistoryofthe1909and1976CopyrightActs,andthemeagerprecedentavailablefromanalogoussituationsinotherCircuits,Iholdthattheanswertothatquestionisaforceful,yetqualified,"no"andGRANTsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantLelandWolf.Furthermore,pursuantto17U.S.C.
§
505,RighthavenshallreimburseMr.Wolfsfullcostsindefendingthisaction,includingreasonableattorneyfees.FACTUALBACKGROUNDOnNovember18,2010,
theDenverPost
publishedaphotographofaTransportationSecurityAdministrationAgentperforminganenhancedpat-downsearchatDenverInternationalAirport(the"Work").AlthoughthecopyrightinthisphotographwasoriginallyheldbyMediaNews
1
Case1:11-cv-00830-JLKDocument49Filed
09/27/11
USDCColoradoPage2of14
Group,Inc.,
theDenverPost's
parentcompany,atsomepointfollowingitsoriginalpublicationthecopyrightwaspurportedlytransferredtoPlaintiffRighthavenLLC,whichregisteredtheWorkwiththefederalCopyrightOfficeonDecember10,2010.
See
CopyrightRegistration(doc.1-4).Shortlythereafter,Righthavenfiledfifty-sevenlawsuitsinthisdistrict,eachallegingcopyrightinfringementinviolationoftheanti-infringementprovisionsoffederalcopyrightlaw.
See
17U.S.C.§501.DefendantLelandWolfwasamongthosecaughtupinRighthaven'senforcementdragnet.'AsallegedinRighthaven'scomplaint,onoraboutNovember29,2010andFebruary5,2011,Mr.WolfdisplayedtheWorkonhiswebsite,itmakessenseblog.com,withoutseekingorreceivingpermissiontodosofromRighthaven.Basedontheseallegedfacts,RighthavenfiledsuitagainstMr.Wolf.OnMay17,2011,Mr.WolffiledaMotiontoDismissforLackofSubjectMatterJurisdiction(doc.11).ANALYSIS
NatureofReview
Asathresholdmatter,itisnecessarytodeterminetheproperframeworkforresolvingMr.Wolfsmotion.Ordinarily,motionstodismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionarepremiseduponFederalRuleofCivilProcedurel2(b)(1)andtakeoneoftwoforms:eitherafacialorfactualattack.
SeeHolt
v.
UnitedStates,
46F.3d1000,1002(10thCir.1995).Inafacialattackonthesufficiencyofthecomplaint,areviewingcourtmustaccepttheallegationsofthecomplaintastrue.
!
Asevidencedbythecaption,Righthavenalsonamed
It
MakesSenseBlogasapartytothisaction.
It
MakesSenseBlogisnotapersonororganizedlegalentity,butthedomainnameofawebsiteownedandoperatedbyMr.Wolf.Itisnot,therefore,capableofbeingsuedanditisdismissedasapartytothislawsuit.
See,e.g.,Aston
v.
Cunningham,
216F.3d1086n.3(10thCir.2000)(dismissingSaltLakeCountyjailasadefendantbecauseadetentionfacilityisnotapersonorlegallycreatedentitycapableofbeingsued).
2
Case1:11-cv-00830-JLKDocument49Filed
09/27/11
USDCColoradoPage3of14
ld.
Whenapartyreliesonevidenceoutsideofthecomplaintinmountingafactualattack,however,areviewingcourtmaynotpresumethetruthfulnessofthecomplaint'sallegations.
ld.
at1003.Insuchinstances,thereviewingcourthas"widediscretiontoallowaffidavits,otherdocuments,andalimitedevidentiaryhearingtoresolvedisputedjurisdictionalfactsunderRule12(b)(1)."
ld.
(citing
Wheeler
v.
Hurdman,
825F.2d257,259n.5(10thCir.1987».Ordinarily,theconsiderationofevidenceoutsidethepleadingsdoesnotconvertaRulel2(b)(1)motiontodismissintoaRule56motion.
ld.
Thereis,however,oneimportantexceptiontothisrule:whentheresolutionofjurisdictionalissuesisintertwinedwiththemeritsofthecase,"acourtisrequiredtoconvertaRulel2(b)(1)motiontodismissintoaRulel2(b)(6)motionoraRule56summaryjudgmentmotion...."
ld.
Theresolutionofjurisdictionalissuesissaidtobeintertwinedwiththemeritsofthecase"whensubjectmatterjurisdictionisdependentuponthesamestatutewhichprovidesthesubstantiveclaiminthecase...."
ld.
(citing
Wheeler,
825F.2dat259);
seealsoTilton
v.
Richardson,
6F.3d683,685(10thCir.1993).Thepartiesmust,however,begivennoticebeforeaRule12(b)(1)motionisconvertedtoaRule56motion.
Wheeler,
825F.2dat259.Suchnoticeneednotbeformalorexplicit;"whenapartysubmitsmaterialbeyondthepleadingsinsupportoforopposingamotiontodismiss,theprioractiononthepartofthepartiesputsthemonnoticethatthejudgemaytreatthemotionasaRule56motion."
ld.
at260.Becausemyjurisdictioninthiscaseisdependentuponfederalcopyrightlaw,whichalsoprovidesthebasisforRighthaven'sclaimofinfringement,thejurisdictionalissuesraisedinMr.WolfsMotiontoDismissareintertwinedwiththemeritsofthecase.Accordingly,IwillconverthisRulel2(b)(1)motiontodismissintoaRule56motionforsummaryjudgment.Furthermore,becausebothpartiessubmittedmaterialsinsupportoftheirrespectiveargumentsonMr.Wolfs3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Colorado Court Order Dismissing Righthaven's Lawsuit Against Leland Wolf
Court Order by Colorado Judge Kan Dismissing Righthaven's Copyright Infringement Lawsuit in Righthaven LLC v. It Makes Sense Blog and Leland Wolf, Case No. 11-cv-00830 (D. Colo.)
1.6K
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
