Purzel Video Gmbh v. St. Pierre
10 F. Supp. 3d 1158
D. Colo.2014Background
- Plaintiff sued multiple Doe defendants for copyright infringement based on BitTorrent distribution; the court permitted expedited Rule 45 subpoenas to ISPs to identify Doe defendants, leading to identification of defendant Cyrus St. Pierre.
- St. Pierre filed an answer asserting 13 defenses and 5 counterclaims (abuse of process; malicious prosecution; invasion of privacy; outrageous conduct; groundless/frivolous lawsuit).
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss St. Pierre’s counterclaims and to strike seven affirmative defenses; St. Pierre did not file a response.
- Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended granting the motion: dismissing all counterclaims and striking specified affirmative defenses.
- The district judge reviewed for clear error (no objections were filed), affirmed and adopted the Recommendation, dismissing the counterclaims and striking the listed defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of process counterclaim | Settlement offer within statutory damages was legitimate; no abuse | Plaintiff used suit to embarrass, extort settlement ($4,000) | Dismissed — settlement within statutory range does not show improper use of process |
| Malicious prosecution counterclaim | N/A (Plaintiff asserted claim is premature) | Plaintiff brought suit maliciously | Dismissed as premature — underlying infringement action not resolved in defendant's favor |
| Invasion of privacy counterclaim | N/A | Letters/subscriber info/publication invaded privacy | Dismissed — no private fact pleaded; subscriber/BitTorrent info not private |
| Outrageous conduct counterclaim | N/A | Filing suit and settlement demands are extreme and cause severe distress | Dismissed — filing suit and settlement within statutory range not ‘‘extreme and outrageous’’ |
| Groundless/frivolous-suit counterclaim | N/A | Claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. and Rule 11 as independent substantive claims | Dismissed — statutory fee-shifting and Rule 11 are remedies/procedures, not standalone substantive claims |
| Unclean hands (affirmative defense) | N/A | Plaintiff acted in bad faith/extortionate tactics | Stricken — allegations conclusory and settlement offers within statutory range do not show fraud/deceit/unconscionability |
| Failure to mitigate / No damages (affirmative defenses) | Plaintiff elected statutory damages only | Plaintiff alleges no actual damages; failed mitigation | Stricken — election of statutory damages forecloses mitigation and actual-damages defenses |
| Copyright validity / Lack of originality / Lack of proof (affirmative defenses) | N/A | Attacks on copyright validity, originality, and proof negate elements of plaintiff's claim | Stricken as improper affirmative defenses — these attack plaintiff's prima facie case, not affirmative defenses |
| Grossly excessive statutory damages (affirmative defense) | N/A | Statutory damages are grossly excessive and bar claim | Stricken — challenge to amount of statutory damages is not a defense that defeats the infringement claim as pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (requirement to plead factual matter making claim plausible)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (elements of copyright infringement: valid copyright and copying of original elements)
- Hertz v. Luzenac Group, 576 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2009) (elements and standards for abuse of process)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (magistrate recommendations and de novo review rule)
- Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165 (10th Cir. 1991) (district court discretion to choose standard of review when no objections filed)