Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
1:18-cv-06626
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Actava TV, Inc. and related parties) and Defendants (Russian television channels and their affiliates) resolved earlier copyright infringement lawsuits via a 2016 Settlement Agreement, requiring Actava to disclose all “sources” used to stream broadcasts.
- Plaintiffs provided information identifying one such source (MHCOM GmbH), and Defendants confirmed the information was satisfactory at the time.
- The Settlement Agreement, governed by New York law, included provisions outlining what would happen if full source disclosure was not provided.
- Subsequent to the settlement, new litigation erupted with Plaintiffs suing for malicious prosecution, tortious interference, breach of contract, and unfair competition; Defendants counterclaimed for tortious interference, breach of contract (particularly as to source disclosure), and constructive fraud.
- In March 2024, the court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on most counterclaims, but allowed Defendants to amend and re-plead the breach of contract theory based on alleged non-disclosure of all sources under Paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement.
- The key procedural question became whether Defendants’ new (amended) breach of contract counterclaim was timely, given New York’s six-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of amended breach of contract claim | Claim is time-barred; should have been filed within six years of settlement obligations | Statute of limitations was tolled by 2021 Notice of Breach letter | Amended counterclaim is untimely; limitations period was not tolled |
| Sufficiency of source disclosure under Paragraph 4 | All settlement disclosure requirements were satisfied and Defendants accepted at the time | Plaintiffs failed to identify all sources, as later discovery revealed additional, undisclosed sources | Plaintiffs' disclosure satisfied contract, as confirmed by Defendants in 2016 |
| Effect of Defendants’ 2021 “Third Notice of Breach” | Notice did not constitute an amendment of pleadings or toll the statute | Letter put Plaintiffs on notice of a new claim, should toll the limitations period | Letter did not operate as an amendment or tolling event under relevant case law |
| Leave to amend counterclaims and relation-back | N/A (focused on timeliness of current claim) | Amendments should relate back or otherwise be considered timely | Court rejects argument; amendment does not render otherwise untimely counterclaim timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and materiality of facts)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’Ship, 22 F.3d 1219 (burden of proof on summary judgment)
- Viola v. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am., 42 F.3d 712 (review on summary judgment; burden on moving party)
- Jill Stuart (Asia) LLC v. Sanei Int’l Co., 548 Fed. Appx. 20 (elements for breach of contract under NY law)
- Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337 (breach of contract elements)
- Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347 (opposing summary judgment must show genuine dispute of material fact)