Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:2010mc80028 - Document 72 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 62 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge James Ware on 5/7/2010 (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2010) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Doc. 72 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES David A. Gauntlett (SBN 96399) James A. Lowe (SBN 214383) Brian S. Edwards (SBN 166258) 18400 Von Karman, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 553-1010 Facsimile: (949) 553-2050 info@gauntlettlaw.com jal@gauntlettlaw.com bse@gauntlettlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steve Chen 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., MANAGED ) SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., STEVEN CHEN ) AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No.: C 07-3952 JW ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In response to the First Amended Complaint for Contributory and Vicarious Trademark and 2 Copyright Infringement (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., (“Plaintiff” or 3 “Vuitton”), Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., (“Akanoc”), Managed Solutions Group, Inc., 4 (“MSG”) and Steve Chen (“Chen”) (collectively “Defendants”) state as follows: 5 I. Jurisdiction and Venue 6 1. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 1 of the FAC. 7 2. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 2 of the FAC. 8 3. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 3 of the FAC. 9 4. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4 of the FAC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 II. 5. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 6. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 7. Defendants deny each and every allegation in paragraph 7 of the FAC. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Introduction III. 8. The Parties: Plaintiff Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 9. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 10. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 11. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 12. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 13. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 1 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 15. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 16. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 17. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 18. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 19. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 20. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 21. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 22. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 23. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 24. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 25. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 24 truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 25 IV. 26 26. The Parties: Defendants Defendants admit that Akanoc is a California corporation duly organized and existing 27 under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Fremont, California. 28 Akanoc denies each and every other allegation of paragraph 26 of the FAC. 2 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 27. Defendants admit that MSG is a Delaware corporation duly organized and authorized 2 to do business in the State of California with its principal place of business in Fremont, California. 3 MSG denies each and every other allegation of paragraph 27 of the FAC. 4 28. Defendants admit that Steve Chen is an individual resident of Fremont, California and 5 a shareholder and officer of Akanoc and MSG. Defendants deny each and every other allegation of 6 paragraph 28 of the FAC. 7 8 29. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 29 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 9 V. The Alleged Infringing Activities 10 30. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 30 of the FAC. 11 31. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 31 of the FAC. 12 32. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 32 of the FAC. 13 33. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 33 of the FAC. 14 15 16 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 34. Defendants repeat and re-allege all of the answers contained in paragraph 1 through 33, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 17 35. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 33 of the FAC. 18 36. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 36 of the FAC. 19 37. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 37 of the FAC. 20 38. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 38 of the FAC. 21 39. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 39 of the FAC. 22 40. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 40 of the FAC. 23 41. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 41 of the FAC. 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42. Defendants repeat and re-allege all of the answers contained in paragraph 1 through 41, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 43. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 43 of the FAC and therefore deny the same. 3 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 44. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 44 of the FAC. 2 45. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 45 of the FAC. 3 46. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 46 of the FAC. 4 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 6 47. Defendants repeat and re-allege all of the answers contained in paragraph 1 through 33, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 7 48. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 48 of the FAC. 8 49. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 49 of the FAC. 9 50. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 49 of the FAC. 10 51. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 50 of the FAC. 11 52. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 51 of the FAC. 12 53. Defendants deny each and every allegation of paragraph 52 of the FAC. 13 54. The Defendants deny each allegation of the First Amended Complaint except as 14 specifically admitted. 15 First Affirmative Defense (Failure to State a Claim) 16 17 55. Defendants have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 18 Second Affirmative Defense (Laches) 19 20 56. The claims of Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of laches. 21 Third Affirmative Defense (Estoppel) 22 23 57. The claims of Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 24 Fourth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Hands) 25 26 58. 27 /// 28 /// The claims of Plaintiff are barred by its unclean hands. 4 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 Fifth Affirmative Defense (Waiver) 2 3 59. The claims of Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 4 Sixth Affirmative Defense (Failure to Comply with Notice Requirements of DMCA) 5 6 60. To the extent defendants, or each of them constitute “service providers” as that term 7 is utilized in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 et seq., (DMCA) Plaintiff failed 8 to substantially comply with notification requirements of the DMCA as to claimed infringement. 9 Seventh Affirmative Defense (Immunity of Service Providers Under DMCA) 10 11 61. To the extent defendants, or each or any of said defendants, constitute “service 12 providers” as that term is utilized in the DMCA, defendants, or each or any of said defendants, are 13 immune from liability for monetary relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(a). 14 Eighth Affirmative Defense (Immunity of Service Providers Under DMCA) 15 16 62. To the extent defendants, or each or any of said defendants, constitute “service 17 providers” as that term is utilized in the DMCA, defendants, or each or any of said defendants, are 18 immune from liability for monetary relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(b). 19 Ninth Affirmative Defense (Immunity of Service Providers Under DMCA) 20 21 63. To the extent defendants, or each or any of said defendants, constitute “service 22 providers” as that term is utilized in the DMCA, defendants, or each or any of said defendants, are 23 immune from liability for monetary relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). 24 Tenth Affirmative Defense (Immunity of Service Providers Under DMCA) 25 26 64. To the extent defendants, or each or any of said defendants, constitute “service 27 providers” as that term is utilized in the DMCA, defendants, or each or any of said defendants, are 28 immune from liability for monetary relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(d). 5 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 Eleventh Affirmative Defense (Compliance with Federal Stored Communications Act) 2 3 4 65. Defendants’ conduct is in compliance with and mandated by the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2700-2712). 5 Twelfth Affirmative Defense (Privilege) 6 7 66. 8 providers. 9 Defendants’ acts are privileged under federal law regulating Internet service WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that this honorable Court: 10 1. Enter a judgment in Defendants’ favor and against Plaintiff on its FAC; 11 2. Award Defendants its costs of suit; 12 3. Award Defendants their attorneys’ fees; 13 4. Award Defendants such other further relief that the Court deems just and proper; and 14 5. Declare that Plaintiff take nothing by this action. 15 16 Dated: July 29, 2008 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES 17 18 By: s/ James A. Lowe David A. Gauntlett James A. Lowe Brian S. Edwards 19 20 Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., and Steve Chen 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW 1 2 JURY DEMAND Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. 3 4 Dated: July 29, 2008 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES 5 6 By: s/ James A. Lowe David A. Gauntlett James A. Lowe Brian S. Edwards 7 8 Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., and Steve Chen 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 10562-002-7/29/2008-162328.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – C 07-3952 JW
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
