Attorney Steve® BitTorrent Litigation Updates - The role of Cobbler Nevada
Cobbler-Nevada vs. Gonzales is a case that may be able to help "John Doe" Defendants in copyright file-sharing cases involving Strike Three Holdings pornographic adult films. Here is one case that discussed the general principle that it is their burden of proof to put the internet subscriber "behind the computer" and show a reasonable likelihood that the SUBSCRIBER is also the INFRINGER.
"The Court notes, however, that, although it is permitting limited early discovery, it is not precluding Mr. Doe from filing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss nor is it prejudging any such motion. The Court also advises Strike 3 that, upon obtaining the name and address of Mr. Doe, it has a Rule 11 obligation to determine whether to proceed with the lawsuit and, in that regard, it should be mindful of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that "a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol ('IP') address associated with infringing activity is [in]sufficient to state a claim for direct or contributory infringement"). See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Address, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116118, *3.
Podcast: How does Strike Three try to satisfy Cobbler?
The problem with many of Strike Three's claims is when it comes time to provide the "Cobbler evidence" to seek to raise an inference that the internet SUBSCRIBER is also the actual INFRINGER is that they tend to be vague about things and claim that their evidence "lists files" (whatever that means) showing likes, interests or other alleged downloads of the John Doe Defendant. If the information makes no sense (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't) you may need to look into possibly filing a legal challenge to the amended complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss the claim for failing to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable claim.
In Albert v. Embassy of Music GMBH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132657, *7-8 the court noted:
"A complaint which falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal can be based on "the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The requirement [*8] that the court must "accept as true" all allegations in the complaint is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.
Contact our Boutique Copyright Infringement Defense Law Firm
If you are involved in a copyright infringement lawsuit involving allegations of illegal file-sharing of Strike 3 Holdings adult content, contact us at (877) 276-5084 or email us through our contact form. We have settled nearly 1,000 copyright infringement matters since our founding in 2004 and we are the clear leader in handling cases filed in California in the Central District, and Northern District. Moreover, our client reviews speak volumes.