United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Olena Wilson's
Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 18. Plaintiff opposes the Motion.
Dkt. # 20. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Dkt. # 18.
Criminal Productions, Inc. filed this case against Defendants
alleging that they infringed on its copyright to the motion
picture, Criminal, by illegally downloading the
movie using a “peer-to-peer” (“P2P”)
or BitTorrent file network. Users of BitTorrent file networks
use online pseudonyms (“user names” or
“network names”). At the time of filing,
Plaintiff identified Defendants by their Internet Protocol
(“IP”) address and the date and time of the
alleged infringement. Plaintiff then used information from a
non-party Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to
determine Defendant's names. Dkt. # 20.
Olena Wilson, proceeding pro se, now moves to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. As Defendant does not cite
to any legal authority in her Motion, the Court construes it
as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents
referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint
avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that
would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial
notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908
(9th Cir. 2003).
Wilson argues that she was not properly named as Defendant in
this case because she did not download the movie at issue,
that she is located in a housing development with access to
at least eleven (11) Wi-Fi networks from her home, that her
personal Wi-Fi network was password-protected with a default
password, and that she believes that the evidence naming her
as Defendant in this case is insufficient because of the
existence of Malware and other methods used by hackers to
route data through other IP addresses.
state a claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiff must
establish: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2)
copying of constituent elements of the work that are
original.” Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel.
Servs. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Plaintiff has
alleged that it owns a valid and registered copyright in the
Criminal film. Dkt. # 14 ¶¶ 6-7; Dkt. # 14
Ex. A. This “is considered prima facie evidence of the
validity of the copyright.” Syntek Semiconductor
Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 781
(9th Cir. 2002); see also 17 U.S.C. § 410(c).
Having alleged ownership and filed a certificate of
registration, Plaintiff has established the first element.
alleges that Comcast assigned a distinct IP address to
Wilson. Dkt. # 14 ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that this IP
address “was observed infringing Plaintiff's motion
picture” on a specific date and at a specific time.
Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff further alleges that the
“physical makeup and layout” of Defendant's
residence and neighborhood and the “standard security
measures imposed by the ISP” prevent unauthorized use
of an IP address and make it unlikely that a wireless signal
was “high jacked by someone outside of the
residence”. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff also
alleges that the infringing activity was not an ...