Scott v. WorldStarHipHop Inc
1:10-cv-09538
S.D.N.Y.Nov 14, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Robert Scott sues WorldStarHipHop, Inc. for copyright infringement and state-law privacy violation based on a video on worldstarhiphop.com.
- Court denied summary dismissal of copyright claim but dismissed privacy claim on May 3, 2012.
- WorldStar answered on June 11, 2012 with eleven affirmative defenses; motion to strike later filed by plaintiff.
- Court analyzes timeliness under Rule 12(a)(4)(A); WorldStar's delay about three weeks was not prejudicial and belated Answer allowed.
- Rule 12(h) waiver leads to striking WorldStar's lack of personal jurisdiction defense; remaining defenses evaluated under Rule 12(f).
- Court finds remaining ten defenses pled with enough factual basis; ultimately grants strike only for lack of personal jurisdiction, denies strike as to others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Answer | WorldStar's delay prejudiced plaintiff | Delays due to inadvertence; no prejudice | Belated Answer allowed; no default |
| Waiver under Rule 12(h) of lack of personal jurisdiction | Defense was waived for lack of jurisdiction | Defense not waived or should be preserved | Lack of personal jurisdiction defense stricken under Rule 12(h) |
| Rule 12(f) sufficiency of remaining defenses | Affirmative defenses should be struck as insufficient | Affirmative defenses are plausible and pled with factual basis | Ten remaining defenses not structurally insufficient; strike denied |
| Plausibility standard applied to affirmative defenses | Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to defenses | Twombly/Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses | Takings consistent with treating Rule 8(a) vs 8(c); not applying Twombly/Iqbal to defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (district courts prefer merits resolution over default judgments)
- Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976) (courts should not tamper with pleadings absent strong reason)
- William Z. Salcer, Panfeld, Edelman v. Envicon Equities Corp., 744 F.2d 935 (2d Cir. 1984) (rule on striking an affirmative defense under Rule 12(f))
- Shechter v. Comptroller of New York, 79 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 1996) (affirmative defenses that are mere conclusions lack efficacy)
- Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., 531 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (plausibility standard applied to affirmative defenses by some courts)
- Burck v. Mars, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (courts have split on applying plausibility to defenses)
- Wireless Ink Corp. v. Facebook Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discusses standards for striking affirmative defenses)