Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"

Background

Actava TV, Inc., Master Call Communications, Inc., Master Call Corporation, and Rouslan Tsoutiev sued Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide,” Closed Joint Stock Company “CTC Network,” Closed Joint Stock Company “New Channel,” Limited Liability Company “Rain TV-Channel,” Closed Joint Stock Company “TV DARIAL,” Open Joint Stock Company “ACCEPT,” Limited Liability Company “Comedy TV,” and Kartina Digital GmbH. The claims included malicious prosecution, tortious interference, breach of contract, and unfair competition under New York law. The defendants asserted counterclaims for tortious interference, breach of contract, and constructive fraud.

The parties entered a settlement agreement in April 2016 resolving two earlier actions. Paragraph 4 defined the “Source” as the source of the signal or other data used to copy and stream broadcasts through Actava’s website. It required disclosure of the Source within 24 hours after entry of the relevant orders. The agreement stated that failure to provide the information would allow the plaintiffs to declare the agreement void, retain the settlement amount as liquidated damages, and seek to reinstate the earlier actions.

Within 24 hours of signing the agreement, the Actava Parties’ counsel identified MHCOM GmbH as Actava’s source and provided related invoices and contact information. The Channels’ counsel later responded that the information was satisfactory. In February 2021, Channel One sent a “Third Notice of Breach,” asserting that Actava had failed to identify other sources. The defendants later relied on that theory in an amended counterclaim alleging breach of Paragraph 4.

Prior Proceedings

In a March 18, 2024 order, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on all of Defendants’ then-pleaded counterclaims. It also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim. The court allowed Defendants to amend their counterclaims to assert the additional Paragraph 4 theory, but withheld judgment on that theory pending fuller briefing.

The parties then cross-moved for summary judgment on the amended counterclaim. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that the earlier permission to amend implicitly established that the counterclaim was timely.

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a legal claim. Under New York law, a breach-of-contract claim generally has a six-year limitations period. The court determined that the alleged breach occurred, for limitations purposes, when the Actava Parties were required to identify all sources used for the broadcasts—April 26, 2016. Defendants therefore needed to bring the claim by April 26, 2022.

Defendants argued that the limitations period was paused or otherwise preserved when Channel One sent the February 17, 2021 “Third Notice of Breach.” The court rejected that argument. It explained that the cases Defendants cited concerned notice provided through a motion to amend an existing pleading or a proposed amended complaint. The notice letter was not a proposed amended counterclaim, did not provide the same notice of the claim Defendants ultimately asserted, and did not contemplate that Defendants would bring this particular counterclaim.

The court therefore held that the amended counterclaim was untimely because it was filed outside the six-year limitations period.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 712, 727, and 733 and to close the case.