Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva

Background

Viral DRM LLC alleged that eight defendants copied and re-uploaded its copyrighted videos of extreme weather events to YouTube. The court had previously granted a temporary restraining order, authorized alternative service, and converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. Viral DRM served the defendants by email. No defendant appeared, and the clerk entered their default.

Default judgment and personal jurisdiction

The court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the copyright claims because they raised a federal question under the Copyright Act. But before entering default judgment, the court had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal authority to exercise power over each defendant.

The court concluded that Viral DRM had not met its burden. The motion was contradictory about whether the defendants were foreign citizens or domiciled in California, and it left incomplete information about a principal place of business. The court also explained that uploading allegedly infringing material to YouTube from foreign locations did not, by itself, establish that the defendants expressly targeted California. Because the defendants were separate individuals or entities, the court had to evaluate each defendant’s contacts with California individually. Viral DRM also relied on counternotices filed by only three of the eight defendants, and its motion did not adequately explain why those counternotices established personal jurisdiction.

The court therefore denied Viral DRM’s motion for default judgment without reaching the separate factors used to decide whether default judgment should be entered.

Preliminary injunction

Because of the personal-jurisdiction concerns, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction as to defendants who had not served counternotices. The injunction remained in place for the three defendants identified as Extreme Weather&Natural Disasters, NA Weather, and WAHR.

Joinder

The court also questioned whether Rule 20 allowed Viral DRM to sue all eight defendants in one action. That rule requires the claims against joined defendants to arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and to share a common legal or factual question. The court found that the complaint did not allege joint, several, or alternative liability arising from the same events. Instead, the complaint appeared to allege separate acts involving defendants with different websites, names, and countries.

Order to show cause and next steps

The court ordered Viral DRM to file a written response explaining how it had personal jurisdiction over each defendant and how joining all eight defendants complied with Rule 20. The response was due February 1, 2024, and Viral DRM could file an amended complaint by that date. The court stated that a defendant would be dismissed without prejudice if Viral DRM could not establish personal jurisdiction over that defendant. It also stated that any misjoined defendant would be dismissed, while the case could proceed against the first named defendant for whom Viral DRM established a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction. The court scheduled a further case-management conference for February 8, 2024.

Disposition

The order denied Docket No. 60, dissolved the preliminary injunction for defendants who did not serve counternotices, and issued an order to show cause regarding personal jurisdiction and joinder.