Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 16

1 JOl4N (''JACK'
')D.W OODEN
pro se
2 3215 W oodland Ridge
Columbus,IN 47201
Telephone:(812)342-4816
4 A ppearingpro se forDefendant
5 JACK D.W OODEN ;
.
1
=
'..
.
'

6 '
.
. ir,.k 1
=
,.
..

7 , - '. . ..
.
.: z '-
IJNITED STATE S D ISTR IC T C O U RT . 2è : w )
8 ;l 5... .
. '.': ...
DISTRICTOFNEVADA ( #-
-
;jk w --t
:,'è
9 .r< ( =
. sa ,:g x
RIO H TH AV EN LLC,a N evada lim ited- L
10 liabilitycompany, CASE NO.:2:10-CV-00692-LRH-(LRL)
11 Plaintil,
V. DEFEN DA N T .S A N SW ER
12
JACK D.W OODEN,an individual, NO JURY TRIAL DEM AN DED
13
14 Defendant.

15

16 DefendantJOI4N (''JACK'')D W OODEN answerson information and beliefthe

.

17 allegations in the Iike- num bered paragraphsofPlaintiffRighthaven LLC'SCom plaint,and

18 pursI,antto Fed R.Civ.P.8(b)(3)herebydeniesallallegationsexceptasspeciticallyndmitted
.

19 below:
20 xx vvu s o w A c-rlo x
.

21 1) AdmittedthatPlainti/sComplaintpurpoltstoallegecopyrightinfdngement
22 PtVSlmntto 17 U S.C.j501.
.

23 ex a erjss

24 a) Admjtted .

25 g) Aamiued .

26 4) AdmittedthatDefendantownsacompanythatis, and hasbeen atalltimesrelevant

27
1 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 16
I

1 to thislawsuit,theowneroftheInternetdomainfoundatKmadjacksports.com>.
2 JUR ISD ICTIO N

3 5) Admittedthatfederaldistrictcourtshaveoriginalsubjed matterjurisdictionover
4 copyrightinfringementcasespursuantto 28U.S.C.91331and28U.S.C.j1338(a).
5 6) Denied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
6 investintightingpersonaljurisdidionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
i 7 deminimis,fz?'
ltfin any eventlessthan $86.00.
i
8 7) Admittedthatathird-m rtymemberofthepublicoN ratingundertheusername
9 ''illuminati''posted textfrom a newspaperarticle entitled Gtltebelsaim to fattenup on patsies,

10 includingColorado State''(the''Newspam rArticle'')onamessageboardlocatedatthelnternet

11 addressMhe ://- .madjrksm ds.coe foe shoe d.php?p=zs7gg4s> ('% eW ebPage'').
12 TheW eb Pageappearedonapublicdiscussion forum onthewebsiteM adlackSm rts(''the
l3 W ebsiten),whichislocatedattheURL <madjacksports.com>.Specifically,theW ebPage
14 appearedonapublicforum entitled ''F- '
Ihrows@ CAA),''whichwmsasub-forum ofapublic
15 fonlm entitled ''HANDICAPPING,''which itselfwasoneofnumerouspublic forum son the
16 W ebsite.
17 8) AdmittedthattheW ebPagedisplaye.dtextfrom theNewspam rArticlethatwas
18 posted on the W eb Page on oraboutFebnzary 20,2010 by athird-partym em berofthepublic
19 operating underthe usernam e 'illum inati.'' n e textfrom the N ew spaperA rticle wmsrem oved
20 from the W eb Page prom ptly upon receiptofPlaintiffs Com plaint,and thattextno longer
21 appearson the W ebsite. ReceiptofPlaintil sCom plaintin thisaction wasthe srsttime
22 Defendantorhiscom pany had everbeennotifed ofany com plaintorissueregarding the
23 NewspaperM icle.
24 9) Denied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
25 investintightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueoftlliscaseis
26 dem inimis'fzz?zIin any eventlessthan $86.00.
27
2 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 16
@ @

l lolœ nied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
2 investinfightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecattsethevalueofthiscaseis
3 deminimis,JF?W in an.peventIessf/ltm $86.00.

4 1llDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
5 investinlightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscmsebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
6 deminimis,and inany eventlessthan $86.00.
7 lzlDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbeoauseDefendantisnotgoingto
8 investinfightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
9 Jeminimisstzatfin Jm ?eventlessthan $86.00.
10 l3l13enied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
11 ilwestintightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
12 #eminimis,tzrlzfin any eventlessl/lcn $86.00.
13 l'
M Denied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecausem fendantisnotgoingto
14 investinfightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
15 deminimis,tzntfin any eventlessthan $86.00.
16 lslDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
17 investinlightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscmsebecatlsethevalueofthiscaseis
18 deminim is,Jpl in any eventlessl/ztzn $86.00.
19 l6lDenied.However,tbisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
20 investinfightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscmsebecam ethevalueofthiscaseis
21 deminim is,and in any eventlessthan $86.00.
22 l'DDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
23 investinfightingpersonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscmseis
24 de m inim is,and in Jlz
.yeventlessthan $86.00.
25 loDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
26 investintigbtingm rsonaljurisdiction andvenueinthiscasebecamsethevalueofthiscmseis
27
3 DEFENDANT S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 16
@ @

deminimis,and inany eventless than $86.00.

lglDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscaseY causethevalueofthiscaseis
4 #eminimis,J:?J in any eventless than $86.00.
5 zolDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
investinfghtingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscaseG causethevalueofthiscaseis
deminimis,tzrltfin tzny eventIess than $86.00.
8 zllDenied.However,tllisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
9 investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
10 deminimis,fzatfin tzay eventless than $86.00.
zzlDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecausem fendantisnotgoingto
12 investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausetlw valueofthiscaseis
13 #eminimis,tzrlt/in any eventlessthan $86.00.
14 z3lDenied.HoweverstltisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
16 de m inim is,tzntfin Ja.J'eventlessthan $86.00.

17 z4lDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
18 investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecatksethevalueofthiscaseis
19 deminimis,tz?vfin any eventless than $86.00.
20 zslDenied.However,tltisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
21 investinfighthlgpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
22 deminimis,tzlztfin any eventless than $86.00.
z6lDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
investintightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
25 deminimis,tz?ztfin any eventlessthan $86.00.
z'DDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto

4
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 5 of 16
@ @

investinfightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
tfeminimis,and in any eventlessthan $86.00.
z8lDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
investinfightingpersonaljulisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscmseis
.ye
#eminimis,and in Jzl ventless1/larl$86.00.
zglDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
inves'tinsghtingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscaselxcausethevalueofthiscaseis
8 deminimis,tz?'
lJ in any eventlessthan $86.00.
9 3olDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
10 investinKghtingpersonaljuzisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
11 de minimis,and in any eventlessflltzn $86.00.
12 3llDenied.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
13 investin fightingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscaqebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
14 .y e
de m inim is,and in Jrl ventIess1/l(zn$86.00.
15 gzlDenied.However,tllisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
16 hwestinlightingpersonaljulisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecausethevalueofthiscaseis
17 deminimis,and inany erenflessf/ltzrl$86.00.
18 l3lDenie,d.However,thisallegationisirrelevantbecauseDefendantisnotgoingto
19 investinsghtingpersonaljurisdictionandvenueinthiscasebecalzsethevalueofthiscaaseis
20 deminimis,and in any eventlessthan $86.00.
21 VEN llE

22 34lDenied.However,Defendantisnotgoingtoinvestin Gghtingpersonaljurisdiction
23 and venue in thiscasebecausethevalueoftbiscaseisdeminimis,and in any eventless than
24 $86.00.
25 3slDerlied.However,Defendantisnotgoingto investinfightingpersonaljurisdiction
26 and venue in thiscmsebecausethevalueofthiscmseisdeminimis,tzz?tflessthan $86.00.
27
5 DEFENDANT S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 6 of 16

1 FA CT S

2 3oAdmitted.
3 37lAdmitted.
4 3oAdmitted.
5 3glAdmitted.
6 4olAdmitted.
7 4llAdml
't1ed.
8 4zlAdml
'tted.
9 X lAdmitted.
10 44lAdm'
medthatDefendantownsacompanythathascontrolledandcontrolstheUILL
11 qmadjacksports.com> aswellasthemarks/namesMad JackSportsandM adJack Sports,lnc.
12 4slAdml
't1edthatDefendantownsacompanythatis,andhasbeenatal1timesrelevant
13 tothislawsuit,theowneroftheInternetdomainfoundat<madjacksports.com>.
14 e lAdmitted.
15 X lA.
dmittedthatDefendant amongothers,handlescertainadministrativeandtechnical
16 aspectsoftheW ebsite.However,thecontentoftheW ebsiteislargely providedby third parties
17 acting indem ndently withoutptw approvalby tlle Defendantoranyone else;i.e.,theW ebsite
18 comprisespublicforum spopulatedby mem bels ofthepublic,liketheW eb Page atissue here.

19 48IAdmIttedthatonoraboutFebruary20,2010,athird-partymemberofthepublic
20 opemtingtmdertheusername''illuminati''postedtextfrom theNewspam rArticleCRebelsaim
21 tofattenuponpatsies,includingColoradoState''lonamessageboardontheW ebPage
22 (<he ://- .= djK H pods.co* fo* sho< > H .php?p=2579945>).TheW ebPage
23 appearedonapublicdiscussion fonlm onthewebsiteM adlack SportsCtheW ebsiten),which is
24 locatedattheURL <madjacksports.com>.Specifcally,theW ebPageappearedonapublic
25 forum entitled ''Free'
Ihrows(NCAA),''whichwasasub-forum ofapublicforum entitled
26 ''HANDICAPPING ''whichitselfwasoneofnumerotlspublicforumsontheW ebsite.TheW eb
27
6 DEFENDANT S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 7 of 16
@ @

1 Pagewmsonlyvisitedtwentpnine(29)timesbeforethetextfrom theNewspaperArticlewas
2 deleted from the W eb Page. And thetextfrom theNewspaperArticle wasrem oved from the

3 W eb Pagepromptly upon receiptofPlainti/ sComplaint;itno longerappearson theW ebsite.

4 ReceiptofPlaintiF sCom plaintin thisaction wasthetirsttim eDefendantorhiscompany had

5 everbeennotised ofany complaintorissueregardingtheN ewspaperArticle.

6 zlglAdmitted.
7 solAdml
't1ed.
8 CLM M FO R R ELIEF:C O PY R IG H T IN FRIN G EM ENT
9 sllDefendantrepeatsandreallegesitsAnswerssetforthinParagraphs1through 50
10 above.
11 szlAdmitted.
12 s3lAdml
't1ed.
13 s4lAdml
't1ed.
14 sslAdmitted.
15 s6lAdmittedthattextfrom theNewspaperArticleentitledGRebelsaim tofattenupon
16 patsies,including Colorado State''w ms reproduced on tlle public m essage board located on the
W eb Pagelocated atthelnternetaddress
18 <he ://- .mHjacu pohs.coe foe shoe ead.php?r zs7gg4sr inderogationof
Plaintiff'sexclusiverightsunder17U.S.C.j106(1).
s'
/lm nied.In ordertoqualifyasaderivativework,thesecondworkmustbe
21 sum ciently differentfrom theoriginalwork to besepm tely copyrightable. Herethe
reproduction ofthenewspaperarticle entitled ttRebelsaim to fatten up on patsies,including
23 Colorado State''atthe atthelntem etaddress

<h% ://- .> djKksm ds.co* fo* shoe eH .php?r 2579945> isallegedtobeidentical
25 oressentially identicalto the originalthenewspaperarticleofthatname. Sincethey are
essentially identical,thereprodudion ofthenewspaperarticlewould notbe separately

7 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 I
Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 8 of 16
i

1 copyrightableoverthe originalpublication ofthatarticle,and thusthereproduction could not

2 possiblyconstituteaderivativework inviolationof17U.S.C.j106(2).
3 s8lDenied.TheW ebsitedidnotemailorotherwise''distribute''theNewspaperArticle
4 entitled HRebelsaim to fatten up onpatsies,including Colorado State''to anyone. Rather,tlze
5 W eb Pagelocated attlw Internetaddress

6 Kh* ://- .madjacksm hs.coe foe shoe M .php?r zs7gg4s> simplydisplayed,among

7 otherthings,thetextofthenewspaperarticleto whoevervisited thatW eb Page.And asoftlze
8 date thatthe oflknding NewspaperArticle wasdeleted from thatW eb Pagestherehad been a
9 totalof29visitsto thatW eb Page-ever. Suchtransientdisplaysdo notqualify mq''distributing'
'

l0 theworkinviolationof17U.S.C.j 106(3).
l1 sglAdmit'
tedthattextfrom theNewspam rArticleentitledçslkebelsaim tofattenupon
I 12 patsies,hlcluding Colorado State''wasdisplayed 29timeson thepublicm essageboard on the
13 W eb Pagelocated attheInternetaddress
14 <h% ://- .> djKksm > .co* fo* shoe M .php?r 2579945> inderogationofPlaintifr
15 exclusiverightsunder17U.S.C.j 106(5).
16 6olDenied.UntilreceiptofPlaintifl'sComplaint,neitherDefendantnoranyoneinhis
l7 com pany had any know ledge ofthe N ew spaperA rticle orthata third party had posted textfrom

l8 theNewspaperArticleontheW eb Page(whichneitherDefendantnorhiscompanyever
I l9
: receivedanyfnancialbenefitfrom).Defendantgoestogreatlengtllstoavoidcopyright
1
! 20 infringement, and hasseento itthathiscompany hasmzd followsapublished policy ofdeleting

1 21 anymaterialfrom theWebsitethatisclaimedtoinfnngesomeonesrights,andblockingusers
l
i 22 whorepeatedlypostproblem material, consistentw1t.
11the safe harborprovisionsofthe DigiO l
1 23 Millennium CopyrightAct,17U.S.C.j512(c)(''DM CA'').Congressestablishedthesafeharbor
24 provisionsofthe DM CA precisely forprotection ofpublicweb board om ratorslike Defendant's
25 com pany. And atthetim eofthealleged infringementhere,Defendantand hiscompanythat

26 operatestheW ebsitelocated at<http://www.madjacksports.com>werefullyincompliancewith

27
8 DEFENDANT'
S ANSM R
 i
Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 9 of 16
1
I
i

1 therequirementstoqualify forthatsafeharborprotection,with theexception ofhaving

2 subm itted a designated agentform totheCopyrightOflice.Now thatDefendant'scompany has

3 been advisedofthisadditionaltecbnicalrequirementof17U.S.C.j512(c)(2),Defendant's
4 com pany hassubm itted therequired designated agentform ,and isnow in fullcompliancewith
5 the letterofthesafeharborprovisionsoftheDM CA,though Defendantandhiscompany have
6 alwaysoperated wholly consistently w1111the spiritoftheDM CA safeharbor;i.e.,alwaysin

7 goodfaithandnevertowillfullyinfringeanyone'scopyright.
8 6l) Denied.AsofthedatetlzattheoFendingNewspaperArticlewasdeletedfrom the
9 W ebPage(whichwaspromptlyuponreceiptofinitialnotice--i.e.,Plaintiff'sComplaint),there
10 had been atotalof29 visitsto thatW eb Page-ever.And accordingto the websiteofthe

11 newspam rthatwastheolig'
tnalholderofthecopyrightinthesubjectNewspaperArticle--the
12 ftz.
çVegasReview-lournal--Lv kyauthorizedcopiesofthesubjectarticle(oranyotherarticle)
13 canbeptlrchasedfortwodollarsandninetptivecents($2.95)apiece.' Tims,evenifeachof
14 those29visitswerefrom lmiqueindividuals(whichtheywerenot),andevennotdeductingthe
l5 visitsfrom the partiesand cotmselin connection w1t11thissuit,thetoulmaximum theoretical
16 damagesassociated with postingthatNewspam rArticlewould be29 multiplied by $2.95,or
17 $85.55. n us,farfrom being irreparableand unascertainable,the dam agesherearefixed and
18 incredibly de minimis,and in any eventlessthan $86.00.M oreover,pursuantto Defendant's
l9 company'spolicy and com mon sense,thisentire fedm'
allawsuitcould haveeasily been avoided
20 w 1111a sim ple phonecallorem ail.

( 21 6zlDenied.Asnotedabove,thesubjectNewspam rArticlewasimmediatelytaken do
22 from theW ebsitelocatedat<httlh://wwm mmljmlksm ds.com>.Further,thatW ebsiteisnow
: 23 fullyincompliancewiththesafeharborprovisionsoftheDM CA,17U.S.C.j512(c).
!
! 24 Accordingly,ifPlaintiF orarlyoneelsediscoversallegedly infringing materialon the W ebsite,a
i
!
i 25 simplephonecalloremailisa11thatwillberequired(orpermittedltoresolvethematter.
i 26
I l
; seehe ://- .lvé.coY xrckv hive.he l
1 27
i 9 DEFENDANT'
SAxsw ER
I
I
I
L
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 10 of 16
@ @

l Plaintil plainlyhasnotjustifiedaninjunctionintllesecircumstances.
2 SEPARATELY PLED DEFENSES
3 1) InnocentInfringement:
4 DefendM t''w% notawareandhadnoreasontobelievethatlhisladsconstitutedan
5 infringementofcopyright,''becauseneitherhenoranyone athiscompany,which nmsthe
6 W ebsitein question,had any knowledgeoftheexistenccoftheoffending m aterialuntil
7 DefendantreceivedthepresentComplaint.Accord,l7U.S.C.j504(c)(2).Assoonasthey
8 weremadeawareofit,they took itdown. Accordingly,the minimum sGtutory dam agesof$200
9 should apply.Id.
10 II) M axim um PossibleActualDamagesHereAreJllst$85.55:
11 n eW eb Page thatfeatured textfrom theoffendingNewspaperArticlereceived atotalof
12 29 visits--ever-before theoffending textwasrem oved. And according to the website ofthe
13 newspaperthatwastheoriginalholderofthecopyrightinthesubjectNewspaperArticle--the
14 LasFcg'
tzçReviewdournal-ûùtyauthorizedcopiesofthesubjectarticle(oranyotherarticle)
15 canbepurchasedfortwodollarsandninetpfvecents($2.95)apiece.z Thus,evenifeachof
those29visitswerefrom Ilniqueindividuals(whichthey werenot),andevennotdeductingthe
visits from the partiesthem selves and cotm selin connection w 1t.11this suit,ordedud ing forthe
18 factthenoteverm ne(ifanyone)wouldhaveactuallypaid $2.95toseethatarticle,thetoul
mnxim um theoreticaldamagesassociated with postingthepresently com plained-ofNewspaper
Articlewouldbe,atthevery most,29 multiplied by $2.95,or$85.55.'rhus,tllem aximum
21 possible dnmageshereare fixed and incrediblyde minimis.tzrlt/in any eventlessthan Jé'6.pp.
Accordingly,theminimum statutorydamagesof$200shouldapply.Accor4 17U.S.C.j
23 504(c)(2).

25

2Seehttp://www.lvrj.com/semrch/archive.html
10 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 11 of 16
@ @

111) DefendantShould BeEntitled ToHisCostsandFees:

Thislawsuitwasentirely llnnecessary and isan abuseofthisCourt'sresotlrcesand
power. Butm oreimportantly,thisisnottheorlly such cmsepending before thisCourt. In facto
Plaintiffisa new ly-form ed com orate shelldesigned solely forPlaintiF scounselto use msa
litigation m achineto extortoutrageousmulti-thousand dollarsettlem entsfrom far-flung
''innocentinfringers'
'likeDefendantwhereacnlnldamages,ifany,areinthe $3to $100 range
and could becured with a phonecalloran email.
8 PlaintiffRighthaven LLC wasform ed in 2010 by PlaintiF sattorney, Steven A .Gibsen3

9 fortheapparentsolepum ose ofsearchingtheInternetforappearancesofany portionsof

10 new spaperarticlesoriginating from the f,
tz,ç VegasReviewl ournalnew spaper,then
purportedly obY ning copyrightassignmentsforsuch articles,tilingto registerthecopyrights,
12 and then tiling suitin thisCourtagainsttlx websitesownerswitlmtltregard fortheir
13 geo> phic locationeseeking $75,000 orm orein statutory damagesforthese$3 newspaper
14 articles.AsofM ay25,2010,PACER showedtlmtPlaintiffhadalreadyfiledeighteen(18)
15 such casesinthisCourttand itisDefendant'stmderstandingthatPlaintiffhascontinuedtofile
16 approximatelyx /rnew casesperlfz.ysincethenl/
17 1) 2:10-cv-00350-PM P-RJJ RighthavenLLC v.MoneyReign,Inc.
18 Gled03/13/10 closed05/19/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
19 2) 2:10-cv-X 35l-LDG-PALAi#âl:> enLLC v.NationalOrganizationfortheReform of
20 MarquanaLJwx filed03/15/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
21
3ThepublicrecordsoftheNevada Secretary ofState, available online atnvsos.gov,
22 indicatethatPlaintiffm ghthaven LLC wasformed on January 14, 2010,thatitssole
23 Om cer/M nnngerisNetSortie System s,LLC,andthatthe sole Om cer/M anagerofNetSortie
Systems,LLC isStevenA.Gibson.Courtsmaytakejudicialnoticeofinformationon state
24 websites.FRE 201.Accor4 Hallv.Virginia,385F.3d421,424n.3(4th Cir.2004)(taking
judicialnoticeofwebsiteofVirginiaDivisionofLegislativeServices).
25 4Courtsmaytakejudicialnoticeofdockd information onPACER.FRE 201.Elderv.
Grounds,NotReportedinF.Supp.2d,2010W L 1876877,*1,1.3(C.D.Cal.2010)Cpursuant
26 toRule20loftheFederalRulesofEvidence,theCourtalsotakesjudicialnoticeofthe
electronicdocketsfortheNinthCircuitavailablethroughthePACER system.p
')
27
1l DEFENDANT'
S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 12 of 16
@ @

3) 2:l0-cw0> 84-RCJ-LRL Rl
khthavenLLC v.MajorWager.com Inc.
filed04/07/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
4) 2:10-cv-00485-KJD-1tJJ RighthavenLLC v.CitizensforResponsibilityandEthicsin
Washington,Inc. filed04/07/10-NatureofSuit:820(Copyright)
5) 2:10-cv-00539-LDG-RJJ RighthavenLLC v.Farnham etal.
filed04/14/10 closed 05/20/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
6) 2:10-cv-00584-RLH-LRL RighthavenLLC v.Chavez
fled04/22/10 closed 05/19/10-NatureofSuit:820 tcopyrightl
7) 2:10-cv-00600-RCJ-RJJ RighthavenLLC v.VegasMarketing Group etaI.
10 tiled04/27/10-NatureofSuit:820(Copyright)
11 8) 2:10-cv-00601-M H-PALAfgà/e enffC v.IndustrialWindActionCorp etal.
12 filed04/27/10-NatureofSuit:820(Copyright)
13 9) 2:10-cv-00635-LDG-PAL#fg:f:> gnffC v.KillerFrogs.com Inc.
14 5led 05/04/10-NatureofSuit:820(Copyright)
15 10)2:10-cv-00636-RLH-lUJ RighthavenLLC v.DrShezadMalikLtzw Firm P.C.
16 filed 05/04/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
17 11)2:10-cv-00637-RLH-RU RighthavenLLC v.ProgressiveLeadershè Allianceof
18 AevfzJa etal. filed 05/04/10-NatureofSuit:820 tcopyrightl
19 12)2:10-cv-00691-RCJ-PAL RighthavenLLC v.EcologicalInternetInc.
20 filed 05/13/10-NatureofSuit:820 tcopyrightl
13)2:10-cv-00692-LM -LM AfgA/e caLLC v.JackD.Wooden
22 filed 05/13/10-NatureofSuit:820 tcopyriglltl
23 14)2:10-cv-00706-RCJ-RJJ RighthavenLLC v.EnterpriseFunding,LLC,etal.
24 filed 05/14/10-NattlreofSuit:820 tcopyrightl
25 15)2:10-cv-00734-PM P-RJJ RighthavenLLC v.RealM oneySports,Inc.etaI.
26 fled 05/19/10-NatureofSuit 820tcopyrightl

12 DEFENDANT'
S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 13 of 16
@ @

16)2:10-cv-00740-M H-PALAfgàlà> ea LLC v.Portside,Inc.etal.

tiled05/19/10-NatureofSuit:820lcopylightl
17)2:10-cv-00741-RCJ-LRL RighthavenLLC v.Klerksetal.
fled05/19/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopylightl
18)2:10-cv-00742-JCM-lUJ Righth@ enLLC v.Gof Associatesetal.
tiled05/20/10-NatureofSuit:820tcopyrightl
Defendantisinformed and believestllatPlaintiff/Plaintifl'scounselhasalready been
8 successfulinextractingthottsandsofdollarsinnuisancesettlementsfrom justafew ofthese
9 otherdefendants,andthatPlaintifl-/PlaintiFscotmselintendsthatthisisjustthebeginning:
10 Plaintif hopesto makea 1aw practiceoutofextorting nuisancecopyrightsettlem entsfrom far-
away websiteoperatorsthathappen to have someoneposttextfrom a$3 newspaperarticleon
12 theirsite. Theentire foundatien forthisdubiousbusinessmodelisthe attorney feeshiAing
13 provision of17U.S.C.j505:PlaintiFcanextractthousandsofdollarsfrom faoaway
14 defendantsforwhatshould be$100 cases,becausethedefendantsareafraidthatthisCourt
15 m ightrew ard Plaintif with its attom ey fees. Plaintifl'sbusinessm odelisprecisely the type of
16 abusive,needlessly litigiolzsbehaviorthatgiveslawyersabadname,and itshould bestopped,
17 hereandnow (atthepresentrateoffotlrnew lawsuitsperday,PlaintiffcouldclogthisCourt
with 1,000oftheseIlnnecessmy nuisancelawsuitsperyear).n isCourtisnotobligatedto
award Plaintiffitsfeesorcosts,and respectfully,itshould not. Instead,thisCourtshould put
an endto thism pidly-escalating waste ofresourcesand send a clearsignalto Plaintiffby
awarding Defendanthiscostsand attom ey fees.

13 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 14 of 16

1 PR AY ER FO R R ELIEF
2 W HEREFORE,Defendantresm ctfully requeststhat:

3 A)Plainti/sPrayerforReliefbedeniedinitsentiretysexceptthatDefendanthereby
4 stipulatesthatJudo entbehad in Plaintifl'sfavoragainstDefendantfornon-willfulcopyright
5 infringem entoftheone newspaperarticleatissue,and PlaintiF beawarded $200 in statutory
6 dam ages puzsuantto 17 U .S.C.j504(c)(2).5

7 B)Furthermore,in view oftheentirelytmremsonableandabusivenatureofthiscase

8 (nnmely,Plainti/slilingafederallawsuitanddemanding$75,000andtransferofDefendant's
9 domain nnme,when thetotalpossibleacfaanldam agesare lessthan $86 dollarsand theoffending
10 materialwasposted by a third-party on apublicweb board thatcould havebeen imm ediately
l1 rem oved ifPlaintifrhad simplypioked up thephoneorsentan emailpriorto filing afederal
12 law suitand dragging an individualDefendantacrossthe Country to defend Mm self),and
13 especially in view ofPlaintifl'spattern ofabusivebehaviorin num erousrecently-tiled cases,

14 Defendantseeksanawardofhisfullcostsunder17U.S.C.j505.Accor4 17U.S.C.j505)
15 NevadansforStIZI?'
IJ Governmentv.Nevada,2007W L 1202824,*3(D.Nev.2007)(factorsthat
16 may supportdenying coststo atechnically prevailingplaintiffinclude the losingparty'slimited
17 Gnancialresources,the prevailing party'sm isconduct,the substance ofthe prevailing party's

18 recovery,andthelosingparty'sgoodfaith).Here,evidenceofPlaintifrsbad-faithandabusive
19 tadicsisshown rightin itsComplaint,which requestsasreliefthatDefendant'sdomain nam ebe

20 lockedandtransferredtoPlaintiff.PrayerforRelietl!3.Thereisnobasiswhatsx verforthat
21 reliefhere. Rather,Plaintiffisusingthatbaselessthreatoftnking away awebsite'svery dom ain
22 nnm e to furtheritsplan ofextorting nuisance settlem ents from the little guy.
23
24
5See 17 U .S.
C.j504(0)(2):
25 Inacasewheretheinfringerstkstainstheburdenofproviny,andthecourtfinds,
thatsuch infringerwasnotaware and hadno reason to bellevethathl 'sorheracts
26 constituted an infringem entofcopyright,the courtin itsdiscretion m ay reduce the
award ofstatutory rlnmagesto asum ofnotlessthœ1$200.
27
14 DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 15 of 16
@ @

l C)Additionally,inview ofthespecialcircumstancesofthiscaseandtopreventthis
Court'sprocessfrom beingtksed again-and-again totmreasonably harasssim ilarilmocent
3 ''inflingers''overde m inim is dam agesthatcould be resolved w it,h a sim ple phone callor an
em ail,Defendantrespectfully seeksadeterminationthatitiseffedively the prevailing party
5 here,andth. anawardtoDefendantofreasonableattorney'sfeesunder17U.S.C.j505.
Accor4 FlorentineArtStudiq Inc.v.VedetALCorp.,891F.Supp.532,541(C.D.Cal.1995)
(awardingDefendantitsattorneyfeesasthe''prevailingparty'
'wherePlaintifftecbnically
prevailed on two inflingem entcotmts,because the infringem entw as innecentand the Plaintiff

wasawardedminimum statutorydamages).

11 Respectfully subm itted,

13 D ated: June 1,2010

J0 (JACK'')D. ODEN
32l5 oodland Ridge
15 Colum btls,IN 47201
Telephone:(812)342-4816
Appearingpr/ seforDefendant
JA CK D .W O OD EN

21

23

25

DEFEN DANT'S AN SW ER
 Case 2:10-cv-00692-LRH-LRL Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 16 of 16

1 CER TIFICA TE O F SER W C E

2 PursuanttoFedemlRuleofCivilProcedure5(b),1certifythatonthisdate,lserved
3 atrue and corred copy ofthe foregoing docum ent:
4 DEFEN D A NT 'S AN SW ER
5 upon Plaintifl'scounselby causingittobe placed in United Statesmail,first-classpostage
6 prepaid,addressed to thefollowing individuals:

7 S'
TEVEN A.GIBSON,ESQ.
8 J.CHARLES COONS,ESQ.
9 Righthaven LLC
10 9960 W estCheyelm e Avenue,Suite 210
11 LmsV egas,N evada 89129-7701
12
13
14
l5
16 D ated: June 1,2010
17 JO 'W O OD EN

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
16 DEFENDANT'S ANSw ER