Scribd

No. 19-1124

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,

et al.

,

Plaintiff–Appellants

v. TOFIG KURBANOV,

et al., Defendant–Appellees

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division Case No. 1:18-cv-00957 The Honorable Claude M. Hilton, District Court Judge

ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TOFIG KURBANOV

Evan Fray-Witzer Ciampa Fray-Witzer, LLP 20 Park Plaza, Suite 505 Boston, MA 02116 617-426-0000 Evan@CFWLegal.com Valentin Gurvits Boston Law Group, PC 825 Beacon Street, Ste 20 Newton, MA 02459 617-928-1800 vgurvits@bostonlawgroup.com Matthew Shayefar Law Office of Matthew Shayefar, PC 925 N La Brea Ave W. Hollywood, CA 90038 323-948-8101 matt@shayefar.com

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Tofig Kurbanov

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1124 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/11/2019 Pg: 1 of 70

i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Fourth Circuit Rule 26.1, Defendant-Appellee Tofig Kurbanov states that he is an individual. Kurbanov also states that he is unaware of any publicly held corporation that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation by reason of franchise, lease, other profit-sharing agreement, insurance, or indemnity agreement.


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL ................................................................ 8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 9

I.

Relevant Facts .................................................................................................. 9

A.

Kurbanov and the Websites ................................................................... 9

B.

Plaintiffs ..............................................................................................14

II.

Procedural History .........................................................................................15

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................17

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................20

I.

Standard of Review........................................................................................20

II.

The District Court Properly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint for a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Tofig Kurbanov, a Russian Resident and Citizen. ...........................................................................................................22

A.

Purposeful Availment ..........................................................................25

B.

An Exercise of Jurisdiction Would Not Be Reasonable .....................51

III.

Plaintiffs Waived Jurisdictional Discovery and, in Any Event, it is Not Warranted Here. .............................................................................................55
