Viral DRM LLC v. Rizky Fadilah

Background

Viral DRM LLC alleged that the defendants downloaded its copyrighted extreme-weather videos from online platforms, removed copyright-management information, and uploaded infringing versions to YouTube. Viral DRM moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction seeking to stop further use of its copyrighted material and restrain transfers of assets associated with the accounts.

The court had previously granted the temporary restraining order, allowed alternative service, and extended the temporary restraining order so Viral DRM could obtain information from Google about additional YouTube uploaders. Viral DRM then filed a supplemental brief supporting its preliminary-injunction motion.

Personal jurisdiction and preliminary injunction

The court held that it could not issue a preliminary injunction against a defendant unless it had personal jurisdiction over that defendant. Viral DRM had the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. For an intentional-tort or copyright claim, the relevant inquiry included whether each defendant committed an intentional act expressly aimed at California and caused harm the defendant knew was likely to occur in California. Because there were multiple defendants, the court said it had to evaluate each defendant's contacts with California separately.

Viral DRM argued that jurisdiction existed either because some defendants agreed to it by serving copyright counter-notices or because the defendants expressly aimed their alleged conduct at California. The court found that the counter-notices submitted for God WTF, Latest Weather, OpeN YouR EyeS, and When God is Angry were sufficient to establish the court's personal jurisdiction over those four defendants.

For the remaining 16 defendants, Viral DRM relied on alleged downloads, removal of copyright-management information, and uploads to YouTube. The court concluded that Viral DRM had not shown that these defendants expressly aimed their conduct at California. It relied on authority holding that uploading a video to YouTube is not directed at California merely because YouTube's headquarters are in California.

Accordingly, the court denied the preliminary-injunction motion as to the 16 defendants without submitted counter-notices and vacated the temporary restraining order as to those 16 defendants. As to the four defendants who consented to jurisdiction, the court denied without prejudice the preliminary-injunction motion because Viral DRM had not properly served them and the court had unresolved concerns about whether the defendants were properly joined.

The court found good cause to continue the temporary restraining order until February 8, 2024 as to God WTF, Latest Weather, OpeN YouR EyeS, and When God is Angry. The court cited the four defendants' consent to jurisdiction, the absence of any defendant at the hearing, and Viral DRM's showing of infringement. The continuation was intended to give the court time to resolve the joinder issue before deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

Joinder concerns

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple defendants to be joined in one action only if the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and at least one common question of law or fact will arise. The court concluded that the first requirement was not satisfied on the allegations then before it.

The complaint listed defendants with different websites and different names, and a supporting declaration indicated that the defendants were from different countries. The court found no allegations showing that the claims against the separate defendants arose from the same transaction or occurrence. Instead, the complaint appeared to allege separate acts of copyright infringement. The court also noted that a court may address improper joinder on its own.

Order to show cause and next steps

The court ordered Viral DRM to show cause—that is, to explain—by February 1, 2024, how the court had personal jurisdiction over each defendant who had not submitted a counter-notice and why joining all 20 defendants, who operated different YouTube channels from different countries, was proper under Rule 20.

Viral DRM could file an amended complaint by the same date. The court stated that Viral DRM could remove a defendant if it lacked a good-faith basis for asserting personal jurisdiction or determining that the defendant was properly joined. If Viral DRM did not establish personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant, that defendant would be dismissed without prejudice. The court also stated that it would dismiss any misjoined defendant, while allowing the case to proceed against the first named defendant for whom Viral DRM had not articulated a jurisdictional basis.

The clerk was directed not to issue summonses until the jurisdiction and joinder issues were resolved. The court set a further case-management conference for February 8, 2024, and required Viral DRM to serve the order by email on all defendants and file proof of service.