Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address…

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the defendant used BitTorrent to download, copy, and distribute 122 digital media files that were similar or substantially similar to works covered by Strike 3’s copyrights. Strike 3 identified an IP address through its infringement-detection system and obtained a subpoena in a Florida state court proceeding that led the internet service provider to disclose the subscriber’s identity. Strike 3 stated that another person in the household, rather than the subscriber, was the alleged infringer and identified that person as the defendant in the sealed complaint.

Strike 3 served the defendant, obtained an entry of default from the clerk after the defendant failed to respond, and moved for default judgment. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant does not respond or otherwise defend, but the court must still examine service of process, jurisdiction, and whether the plaintiff’s claims and evidence support judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court could not determine from the record that service was proper. The proof of service said that the summons and complaint were left with or in the presence of “JERRY DOE” and then mailed to the address listed for the defendant. Although the form indicated that a declaration describing attempts at personal service was attached, no such declaration was filed. The court also found that Strike 3 did not identify which law authorized the method of service used.

The court found that it had federal-question jurisdiction because the case arose under the Copyright Act. It stated that personal jurisdiction would be satisfied if Strike 3 properly served the defendant at the address listed in the complaint, where the defendant was alleged to reside.

The court then considered the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment. It found that the complaint alleged copyright ownership and alleged that the defendant used BitTorrent without permission. But after a plaintiff learns an alleged infringer’s identity, merely showing that the person was associated with an IP address is not enough because multiple people and devices may use the same address. The court found that Strike 3’s record contained allegations about the defendant’s interests and the works associated with the IP address, but no evidence explaining how Strike 3’s investigation linked this defendant to the alleged infringement. That lack of evidence was especially significant because Strike 3 stated that the defendant was not the subscriber identified through the subpoena.

Ruling

The court denied Strike 3’s motion for default judgment without prejudice to Strike 3 seeking judgment based on proper proof of service and a more complete evidentiary record. It set aside the default entered by the clerk.

The court ordered Strike 3 to properly serve the defendant with the summons, complaint, and a copy of the order, and to file a complete proof of service by December 5, 2022. The defendant’s response period would begin upon service. If the defendant did not respond and Strike 3 obtained a new default, any renewed motion for default judgment had to identify the law authorizing the service method and provide additional evidence linking the defendant to the IP address and alleged infringement. The court did not reach the remaining default-judgment factors.