Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zuffa, LLC, D/B/A the Ultimate Fighting Championship (Ufc v. Reza T. Kamranian

August 17, 2011

ZUFFA, LLC, D/B/A THE ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP (UFC), PLAINTIFF,
v.
REZA T. KAMRANIAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS OFFICER, DIRECTOR, SHAREHOLDER,
AND/OR PRINCIPAL OF KAMRANIAN, INC., D/B/A REZA'S PITCH, A/K/A REZA'S PITCH-BURGERS & BEER, A/K/A REZA'S PITCH BURGERS AND BEER, AND KAMRANIAN, INC., D/B/A REZA'S PITCH, A/K/A REZA'S PITCH-BURGERS & BEER, A/K/A REZA'S PITCH BURGERS AND BEER, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge United States District Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim for abuse of process, which it filed on May 31, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff owns the UFC #123 broadcast (hereinafter referred to as "the Broadcast"), including all undercard matches and the entire television broadcast. On November 20, 2010, plaintiff made the Broadcast available live via encrypted satellite signal for public viewing by patrons of commercial customers who had purchased a license from plaintiff or its authorized agent, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. It also streamed the Broadcast live on its and its vendors' websites at a reduced rate for private, non-commercial viewing by its individual/residential customers.

On November 20, 2010, Defendant Reza Kamranian used a computer at his restaurant to access the Broadcast online through www.firstrow.net (hereinafter referred to as "FirstRow.net"), a website that, according to plaintiff, did not have rights in or to the Broadcast. He then displayed the Broadcast on several video screens connected to the computer.

On April 18, 2011, plaintiff initiated the above entitled action. First, it asserted that defendants had knowingly and unlawfully intercepted and commercially exhibited the Broadcast without authorization in violation 47 U.S.C. § 605, et. seq.:

Defendants effected unauthorized interception and receipt of Plaintiff's Broadcast by ordering programming for residential use and subsequently displaying the programming in the commercial establishment known as Reza's Pitch Burgers & Beer for commercial gain without authorization, or by such other means which are unknown to Plaintiffs and known only to Defendants. (Docket No. 3 (Complaint at ¶ 21)). Second, it asserted that defendants had violated its copyright by exhibiting the Broadcast without obtaining the proper authority or license in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq.:

Defendant and/or its agents, servants, workmen and employees unlawfully obtained [the Broadcast] through a website intended for private, non-commercial, viewing, enabling Defendant to illegally re-transmit the Broadcast and publicly exhibit it without paying the appropriate licensing fee to Plaintiff, or its authorized agent for commercial distribution. (Docket No. 3 (Complaint at ¶ 32)).

On May 12, 2011, defendants filed an answer. Therein they denied any wrongdoing and further asserted that plaintiff is estopped from complaining about their use of the Broadcast because it took no preemptive action despite the fact that it knew FirstRow.net was conspicuously labeled as a free video service and was offering the Broadcast free of charge. They further asserted that FirstRow.net's web page contained no Term of Use Icon, "where a reasonable person might be alerted to any limitations on the right of use of the free video feed." (Docket No. 12 (Answer and Counterclaim, ¶ 10)). Finally, they asserted a counterclaim for abuse of process by plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff knowingly and in bad faith stated facts in its complaint that it knew to be false: to wit, they had illegally redirected a residential license to commercial use and intercepted or decoded plaintiff's video feed.

On May 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim in its entirety. Defendants filed a response to the motion on June, 21, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of its motion on July 5, 2011.

II STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard for a district court to employ in ruling on a motion to dismiss is well-established. Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2004). "A district court must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true, and all reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hafley v. Lohman, 90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1996)). "[D]ismissal is inappropriate 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., 979 F.2d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). "A motion to dismiss should be granted 'as a practical matter . . . only in the unusual case in which there is some insuperable bar to relief.'" Strand v. Diversified Collection Service, Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Frey v. Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974))). It is clear under the Federal Rules that it is not necessary to plead every fact with formalistic particularity. BJC Health System v. Columbia Gas. Co., 348 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2003). "A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

III. DISCUSSION

In the motion now before the court, plaintiff asserts that defendants' counterclaim for abuse of process is baseless and otherwise fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In so doing, it stresses three points. First, it did not authorize any websites to distribute the Broadcast for commercial use. Second, FirstRow.net was neither its vendor nor authorized agent. Third, FirstRow.net had posted the following terms of use at the time of the Broadcast, negating defendants' assertion there ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.