Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Righthaven Summary Judgment

Righthaven Summary Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,197 |Likes:
Published by Andrea Rael

More info:

Published by: Andrea Rael on Sep 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Judge John L. KaneCivil Action No.
, a Nevada Limited Liability Company,Plaintiff,v.
an individual, and
, an entity of unknown origin and nature,Defendants.
Kane, J.The issue presented in this case, whether a party with a bare right to sue has standing toinstitute an action for infringement under federal copyright law, is one of first impression in theTenth Circuit. After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments and analyzing theconstitutional underpinnings of federal copyright law, the legislative history of the 1909 and 1976Copyright Acts, and the meager precedent available from analogous situations in other Circuits, Ihold that the answer to that question is a forceful, yet qualified, “no” and GRANT summary judgment to Defendant Leland Wolf. Furthermore, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, Righthaven shallreimburse Mr. Wolf’s full costs in defending this action, including reasonable attorney fees.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDOn November 18, 2010,
the Denver Post 
published a photograph of a TransportationSecurity Administration Agent performing an enhanced pat-down search at Denver InternationalAirport (the “Work”). Although the copyright in this photograph was originally held by MediaNews
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 49 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
As evidenced by the caption, Righthaven also named It Makes Sense Blog as a party tothis action. It Makes Sense Blog is not a person or organized legal entity, but the domain nameof a website owned and operated by Mr. Wolf. It is not, therefore, capable of being sued and it isdismissed as a party to this lawsuit.
See, e.g.
Aston v. Cunningham
, 216 F.3d 1086 n.3 (10thCir. 2000) (dismissing Salt Lake County jail as a defendant because a detention facility is not aperson or legally created entity capable of being sued).2Group, Inc.,
the Denver Post 
’s parent company, at some point following its original publication thecopyright was purportedly transferred to Plaintiff Righthaven LLC, which registered the Work withthe federal Copyright Office on December 10, 2010.
Copyright Registration (doc. 1-4). Shortlythereafter, Righthaven filed fifty-seven lawsuits in this district, each alleging copyright infringementin violation of the anti-infringement provisions of federal copyright law.
17 U.S.C. § 501.Defendant Leland Wolf was among those caught up in Righthaven’s enforcement dragnet.
As alleged in Righthaven’s complaint, on or about November 29, 2010 and February 5, 2011, Mr.Wolf displayed the Work on his website, itmakessenseblog.com, without seeking or receivingpermission to do so from Righthaven. Based on these alleged facts, Righthaven filed suit againstMr. Wolf. On May 17, 2011, Mr. Wolf filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject MatterJurisdiction (doc. 11).ANALYSIS
 Nature of Review
As a threshold matter, it is necessary to determine the proper framework for resolving Mr.Wolf’s motion. Ordinarily, motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are premisedupon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and take one of two forms: either a facial or factualattack.
See Holt v. United States
, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 1995). In a facial attack on thesufficiency of the complaint, a reviewing court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true.
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 49 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
When a party relies on evidence outside of the complaint in mounting a factual attack, however,a reviewing court may not presume the truthfulness of the complaint’s allegations.
at 1003. Insuch instances, the reviewing court has “wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, anda limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).”
Wheeler v. Hurdman
, 825 F.2d 257, 259 n.5 (10th Cir. 1987)).Ordinarily, the consideration of evidence outside the pleadings does not convert a Rule12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion.
There is, however, one important exceptionto this rule: when the resolution of jurisdictional issues is intertwined with the merits of the case,“a court is required to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or aRule 56 summary judgment motion . . . .”
The resolution of jurisdictional issues is said to beintertwined with the merits of the case “when subject matter jurisdiction is dependent upon the samestatute which provides the substantive claim in the case . . . .”
, 825 F.2d at 259);
see also Tilton v. Richardson
, 6 F.3d 683, 685 (10th Cir. 1993). The parties must, however, be givennotice before a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is converted to a Rule 56 motion.
, 825 F.2d at 259.Such notice need not be formal or explicit; “when a party submits material beyond the pleadings insupport of or opposing a motion to dismiss, the prior action on the part of the parties puts them onnotice that the judge may treat the motion as a Rule 56 motion.”
at 260.Because my jurisdiction in this case is dependent upon federal copyright law, which alsoprovides the basis for Righthaven’s claim of infringement, the jurisdictional issues raised in Mr.Wolf’s Motion to Dismiss are intertwined with the merits of the case. Accordingly, I will converthis Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Furthermore,because both parties submitted materials in support of their respective arguments on Mr. Wolf’s
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 49 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

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