George Steinmetz v. Bridge Path Property Group, LLC

Background

George Steinmetz sued Bridge Path Property Group, LLC and Does 1–10. The opinion says the complaint was filed on October 6, 2023. It says Bridge Path was served through its registered agent, but gives October 12, 2024 as the service date and October 13, 2023 as the date proof of service was filed. Bridge Path did not answer, appear, or otherwise respond to the complaint. After the court ordered Bridge Path to explain why default judgment should not be entered, Bridge Path did not respond to that order either.

Claims and Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default judgment involves entry of default followed by the court’s decision whether the admitted allegations establish a legal basis for relief. The court examined the allegations rather than treating default alone as automatically proving liability.

For the Copyright Act claim, the court said a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and infringement, meaning copying original elements of the copyrighted work. The court found both elements adequately alleged: Steinmetz claimed ownership of a valid copyright in a photograph, and alleged that Bridge Path reproduced and publicly displayed the photograph on its website. The court therefore found a prima facie, or initially sufficient, case of copyright infringement.

For the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim, the court said a plaintiff must show copyright-management information—such as a watermark or information identifying the copyright owner—and intentional removal or alteration of that information. The court found these elements adequately alleged because Steinmetz claimed that Bridge Path removed information identifying him as the photograph’s author before publishing the photograph on its website. The court found a prima facie case under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted default judgment for violations of the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for an inquest—an additional proceeding to determine the amount of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 17 and close the case.

Note on the Opinion

The opinion contains apparent date and text inconsistencies, including the stated October 12, 2024 service date in a case filed in 2023 and some corrupted paragraph and signature text. The ruling and referral are clear.