Millennium Funding, Inc. et al v. 1701 Management, LLC. et al, No. 1:2021cv20862 - Document 209 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. The Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants Quadranet, Inc.'s and Quadranet Enterprises, LLC'S Motion to Dismiss, DE# 180 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion for Reconsid eration of Order Denying Motion for Default Judgment, DE# 168 , is DENIED. The Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply and Accompanying Declarations in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, DE# 207 , is DENI ED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs shall file an amended Motion for Default Judgment for all claims asserted against the Liquid VPN Defendants on or before March 29, 2022. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/29/2022). Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 3/18/2022. See attached document for full details. (ebz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTR ICT C OU RT SO UTH ER N DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA C ase No.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /O tazo-Reyes M ILLENN IUM FUN DING ,lN C., aN evada corporation,etal., Plaintiffs, 1701 M ANA GEM ENT LLC d/b/a LIQUIDVPN,aPuel'toRicolimited liability com pany,etal., Defendants. O RDER ON M O TION FOR RECO N SIDER ATION TH IS CAUSE isbefore the Courtupon Plaintiffs'M otion forReconsideration of Order GrantingDefendantsQuadranet,Inc.'sand QuadranetEnterprises,LLC'SM otiontoDism issand Clarification ofOrder,ECF No.(180j($$Motion'').1DefendantsQuadranetlnc.and Quadranet Enterprises(collectively,dsouadranet''orStDefendanf')filedaResponseinOpposition,ECFNo. (189)(ûtlkesponse'),towhich Plaintiffsfiled aReply,ECF No.(202)($$Rep1y'').TheCourthas carefully review ed the M otion,allopposing and supporting subm issions,the record in this case, the applicable law,and isotherw ise fully advised.Forthe reasons setforth below ,the M otion is granted in partand denied in partconsistentw ith thisO rder. 1. BA CK G R O UND Millennium Funding, Inc. et al v. 1701 Management, LLC. et al Doc. 209 Plaintiffs'initialComplaintwasfiledonM arch3,2021,andsoughtinjunotivereliefanddamages againstCharlesM uszynski,1701MANAGEMENT,LLC d/b/aLIQUIDVPN ($(LiquidVPN''), and DOES 1-100 (çsDoes1-100'').SeeECF No.(lj.TheFirstAmended Complaint($1FAC'') lTheMotiondoesnotspecifywhichPlaintiffshavejoinedtheMotion.TheCourtsunnisesthata11Plaintiffs whofiledtheSecondAmendedComplaint,ECF No.(96j,joinedtheMotion. Dockets.Justia.com CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes thereafteraddedQuadranet,AUHZO,LLC,andothersasDefendants.SeeECFNo.(241.OnJuly 30,2021,Quadranetfiled itsfirstMotion to Dismiss.SeeECF No.g83).Plaintiffsfiled the Second Amended Complaint ($6SAC''), adding VPNETW ORXS, LLC d/b/a TorGuard (Et-l-orGuard'')gsaDefendant.SeeECFNo.(961.IntheSAC,Plaintiffsassertedclaimsagainst ' Quadranet,among others,contributory copyrightinfringementbasedupon materialcontribution (ttcount111'')# .vicariousinfringement(stcount1V'')#'negligence (tlcountV1'')>'fraud (sdcount V1l'')' ,andequitableestoppel(iscountV1Il'').Seegenerally id.;seealsoECF No.(1l7jat15. Plaintiffsclaimed thatQuadranetleased serversthatwereused forcopyrightinfringem ent,and thatQuadranetpublishedfalseW hoisrecordstopreventPlaintiffsfrom contactingLiquidvpN, TorGuard,andDoes1-100.Seegenerall y ECFNo.(964. On August31,2021,Quadranet filed its second M otion to Dismiss.ECF No.(108) (çtMotion to Dismiss'').ln the Motion to Dismiss,Quadranetargued thatPlaintiffs'SAC isa shotgun pleading,Counts 111,1V ,and V l-V11I failed to state claim s upon which relief could be granted,theCourtlackedpersonaljurisdictionoverQuadranet,andthevenuewasimproper.See generally id.On Septem ber l0,2021,Plaintiffs refuted each ground.See generally ECF N o. (1171. OnDecember13,2021,theCourtentereditsOrderonQuadranet'sM otiontoDismiss, dismissingwithprejudiceal1claimsassertedagainstQuadranet.SeeECFNo.(1735(çtOrder''). Plaintiffs thereaûer filed the instant M otion, contending that thé Order is based on m isunderstandings ofthe factsand prem ature conclusions,thatPlaintiffshave discovered new evidence,and thatthe Ordermisidentifiescertain Plaintiffs.Seegenerally ECF No.gl801. PlaintiffsalsorequestclarificationastowhethertheOrderisafinaljudgment.Seeftf at13- 14.OnFebruary 1j,2022,QuadranetfileditsResponse,arguingthatPlaintiffsfailtopresent an intervening change in controlling law ,the availability of new evidence,or the need to 2 CaseN o.2l-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes correctclear'errorormanifestinjustice.Seegenerally ECF No.g189).Quadranetdoesnot objectto the Coul'tclarifying whetherthe Orderconstitutes a finaljudgm entin favorof Quadranet.Seeid.at19-20.OnM arch4,2022,Plaintiffs'Replyfollowed.SeeECFNo.(202j. 1l. LE GAL STA NDAR D A m otion for reconsideration is Stan extraordinary rem edy to be em ployed sparingly.'' BurgerKing Corp.v.AshlandEquities,Inc.,181F.Supp.2d 1366,1370(S.D.Fla.2002).isfhe burden is upon the m ovant to establish the extraordinary circum stances supporting reconsideration.''SaintCroix Club ofNaples,Inc.v.QBE Ins.Colp.,No.2:07-cv-00468-JLQ, 2009 WL 10670066,at*1(M .D.Fla.June 1$,2009)(citing TaylorWoodrow Constr.Corp.v. Sarasota/ManateeAirportAuth.,814F.Supp.1072,1073(M .D.Fla.1993)). A m otion forreconsideration m ustdo tw o things.First,itm ustdem onstrate som e reason w hy thecoul4 should reconsideritspriordecision.Second,itmustsetforth factsorlaw ofa strongly convincing nature to induce the courtto reverse its prior decision.Courtshavedistilledthreemajorgroundsjustifying reconsideration:(l) an intervening change incontrolling law;(2)theavailability ofnew evidence;and (3)theneedtocorrectclearerrorormanifestinjustice. Coverv.Wal-MartStores,Inc.,148F.R.D.294,295(M .D.Fla.1993)(citationsomittqd).d'Such problem s rarely arise and the m otion to reconsider should be eqtlally rare.''Burger King Corp., 181F.Supp.2d at1369. Because courtopinionsStare notintended as merefirstdrafts,subjectto revision and reconsideration ata litigant'spleasure,''a m otion forl'econsideration m ustclearly Sssetfol' th facts or 1aw ofa strongly convincing nature to dem onstrate to the Courtthe reason to reverse itsprior decision.''Am.Ass'nofpeopleWithDisabilitiesv.Hood,278F.Supp.2d1337,1339,1340(M .D. Fla.2003)(citations omitled).Assuch,a courtwillnotreconsideritspriorruling withouta showingof''clearandobviouserrorwheretheGinterestsofjustice'demandcorrection.''Bhogaita v.AltamonteHeightsCondo.Ass' n,Inc.,No.6:1l-cv-l637-0r1-31,2013W L 425827,at*1(M .D. Fla.Feb.4,2013)(quotingAm.HomeAssuranceCo.v.Glenn Estess&:Assoc.,763F.2d 1237, 3 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes 1239 (11th Cir.1985)).lsW helAissueshavebeencarefully considered and decisionsrendered,the only reason which should com m end reconsideration ofthatdecision is a change in the factualor legalunderpinning upon which the decision was based.''Taylor Woodrow Constr.Corp.,814 F. Supp.at1072-73;seealsoLongcrierv.Sf-A Co.,595 F.Supp.2d 1218,1247 n.2 (S.D.Ala. 2008)(notingthatl-econsiderationmotionsaretobeusedsparingly,andstating,Esimaginehow a districtcourt'sworkload w ould m ultiply ifitw as obliged to rule tw ice on the sam e argum entsby thesamepal' tyuponrequesf'). Similarly,tsgajmotionforreconsideration shouldraisenew issues,notmerely readdress issues litigated previously.''PaineWebber Incom e Props. Three Ltd.Partnership v.M obil Oil Corp.,902F.Supp.15l4,1521(M .D.Fla.1995);seealsoLamarAdvertising ofMobile,Inc.v. CityofLakeland,l89F.R.D.480,490(M .D.Fla.1999)((CA motiontoreconsiderisnotavehicle forrehashing argumentstheCourthasalready rejectedand shouldbeapplied withfinality and withconservationofjudicialresourcesinmind.''(internalquotationmarksomittedl).Furthermore, a m otion for reconsideration ttisnotan opportunity forthe m oving party ...to instructthe court on how the court(could have done itbetter'the firsttim e.''Hood v.Perdue,300 F.A pp'x 699, 700(11thCir.2008)(citationomitted). ltis im proper for defendantto utilize its M otion to Reconsideras a platform for rearguing(andexpoundingon)anargumentpreviouslyconsideredandrejectedin the underlying Order.See Garrettv.Stanton,(No.08-0175-W S-M ,2010 W L 320492,at*2(S.D.Ala.Jan.l8,2010))(($Fartoooften,litigantsoperateunderthe tlawed asstlm ption thatany adverse ruling on a dispositive m otion confers upon them license to m ove for reconsideration ...as a m atter ofcourse,and to utilize thatmotionasaplatform tocriticizethejudge'sreasoning,torelitigateissuesthat have already been decided,to cham pion new argum entsthatcould have been m ade before,and othem ise to attempta Cdô-over'to erase a disappointing outcom e.This isimproper.'');Hughes v.Stlyker Sales Corp.,L' No.08-0655-W S-N,2010 W L 2608957,at *21(S.D.Ala.June 28,2010) (rejecting notion that motions to reconsiderddareappropriatew heneverthe losing party thinksthe D istrictCourt(got itwrong''). Smithv.Nolfolks.Ry.Co.,No.10-0643-W S-B,2011WL 673944,at*2(S.D.Ala.Feb.17,20l1). CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes Atthe sam e tim e,the Eleventh Circuit has determ ined that a m otion for reconsideration cannotbeusedtoCtpresentevidencethatcouldhavebeenraisedpriortotheentryofjudgment.'' Wilchombev.TeeveeToons,Inc.,555F.3d949,957(1lthCir.2009)(quotingM ichaelLinet,Inc. v.VillageofWellington,Fla.,408F.3d757,763(11thCir.2005)).Ss-l-hisprohibitionincludesnew argumentsthatwereSpreviouslyavailable,butnotpressed.'''1d.(quotingStonev.Wall,135F.3d 1438,1442(1lthCir.1998)(percuriaml);seealsoInreHorizonOrganicM ilkplusDHA Omega3Af/c/g.d:SalesPrac.Litig.,No.l2-MD-02324-LENARD,2014 WL 2758805,at*5 (S.D.Fla. June17,2014)(tçpartieswho ignoreargumentsmadebytheiropponentsdosoattheirownperil and should notrely on therestrictive standard ofa m otion forreconsiderationto providethem w ith a second biteatthe apple.'').Ultimately,reconsidel-ation is adecision thatisttleft$to the sound discretion'ofthereviewingjudge.''ArchSpecialty Ins.Co.v.BP Inv.Partners,LLC,No.6:18cv-ll49-Orl-78DC1,2020W L 5534280,at*2(M .D.Fla.Apr.1,2020)(quotingRegion8Forest Serv.TimberPurchasersCouncilv.Alcock,993F.2d 800,806(11thCir.l993)). 111. DISCU SSIO N A . Null-R outing IP addresses Plaintiffsfirstarguethatthereisadistinctionbetweennufl-routinganIPaddressandnullroutinganaccount.SeeECFNo.(180)at4-8.2Plaintiffsclaim thatQuabranetmischaracterized Plaintiffs'allegation thatQuadranetcould null-route IP addressesto mean thatQuadranetcould null-route accounts.See id.at4-5.Plaintiffsfurtherarguethatthe Cou14 adopted Quadranet's m ischaracterization ofPlaintiffs'allegation.See id.at5.Plaintiffs averthatin doing so,the Court m istakenly concluded thatthere w ere no practicalm easures to stop further infringem entbecause null-routing an accountwas an im perm issibly broad m easure.See id.at6.Plaintiffs also claim to provide new evidence that Quadranet's competitor, Sharktech, agreed to implement certain 2Plaintiffsequateblackholefiltering to null-routing IP addresses. SeeECFNo.(180)at6-7. CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes practical m easures to block its end users' access to copyright infringem ent sites.fJ. at 7-8. Therefore,PlaintiffsarguethattherewerepracticalmeasuresthatQuadranetcouldhavetakenand the Coul' tshould nothave dism issed Plaintiffs'vicarious copyrightinfl-ingem entclaim .See id. at 12. Quadranet responds that tfle Court correctly determined that null-routing is an im perm issibly broad m easure thatdoes not constitute a practicalability to police the infringing activitiesofthirdparties.SeeECFNo.(1891at6-8.lnsupport,Quadranetarguesthatitdidnot have specitsc know ledge of infringing activities and therefore could not have null-routed IP addressestheGrstplace.See id.at6-7.Even ifitdid haveknowledge,Quadranetarguesthateach IP address is assigned to m ultiple end users,so null-routing a specific IP address would have resulted in null-routing notonly the IP address ofthe particularend user infringing on Plaintiffs' copyrighted worksbutalso the IP addressofallend usersassigned to the sam e IP address.See id. at7.ln addition,Quadranetassertsthat ituses dynamic IP addresses that are periodically reassigned,and an alleged infringercould simply getanew IP addressifQuadranetnull-routeda particularIP address.Seeid.QuadranetfurtherarguesthatPlaintiffs'relianceon asettlement agreem entw ith Sharktech,a non-party to this case,is irrelevant and does not constitute'''new evidence.''See id.at8-9. Plaintiffs argue in their Reply that specific knowledge of infringing activities is not requiredforavicariousinfringementclaim.SeeECF No.(202)at3.Plaintiffsalsodraw onthe lointStatem entofUndisputed FactsBetween Plaintiffsand DefendantVpNetworks,LLC,ECF No.(198-1)('ç-fbrGuard'sFacts''),toarguethattheydiscoveredthatatleastfol'ty (40)percentof thenoticed copyrightinfringementtookplaceon unencryptedservers,indicatingthatQuadranet was aware of the infringing activity.See id.Plaintiffs further argue that Quadranetwillfully blindeditselftotheinfringingactivity.Seeid.at3-4.lnregardtoQuadranet'sclaim thatituses 6 CaseN o.21-ov-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes dynamic IP addresses,Plaintiffs argue that Quadranet's subscriber TorGuard offersdedicated, staticIP addresses,whichcontradictsQtladranet'sclaim thatitusesdynam icIP addresses.Seeid. at3.Plaintiffsalso note thatTorGuard conceded thatifQuadranetnull-routed an IP address,it w ould nothave affected otherend users'use ofTorGuard'sservices.See id.Plaintiffsalso claim thatQuadranetcouldhavenull-routeddynamicIPaddressesforalimitedperiodoftimeiftheIP addressesw ere in factdynam ic.See id. The Courtagrees with Quadranet.The Courtrecognizesthe technologicaldistinction betw een null-routing an IP address and null-routing an account that Plaintiffs now seek to emphasize. However, Plaintiffs failto persuade the Court that null-routing IP addresses is a practical,effective m easure.As an initialm atter,although Plaintiffs argue thatthe Courtshould considerTorGuard'sFactsasnew evidencethatQuadranetusesstaticIP addressesthatcan be null-routed w ithout affecting m ultiple end users,TorGuard's Facts are notproperly before the Coul4.3 Simply put, TorGuard'sFactsonlypert aintoTorGuard.4Quadranetneverstipulated to TorGuard's Facts.As such,TorGuard's Facts have no bearing on readdressing Quadranet's M otion to D ism iss,w hich is based on the insufficiency ofthe allegations in the SA C.Therefore, the Courtdeclinesto considerTorGuard's Facts,including any suggestion thatQuadranetuses static IP addressesorthatforty (40)percentofnoticed copyrightinfringementtook place on unencrypted servers. Further,to theextentthatPlaintiffsrely on aseparate settlem entagreem entw ith Sharktech, w ho isa non-pal'ty to this case,the Courtisagain notpersuaded.The m annerin which Sharktech operates and is w illing to im plem entsystem s to attempt to block pirating w ebsites is from an 3 Plaintiffs and TorGuard tiled an amended stipulation of dismissalwith the same Joint Statementof UndisputedFactsBetweenPlaintiffsandDefendantVpNetworks,LLC.SeeECFNo.(200-1J. 4TheCourtstatedinitsOrderofDismissal,thatt'gtjheStipulation,ECF No.(2001,isAPPROVED asto PlaintiffsandDefendantVPNETW ORKS,LLC only.''ECFNo.g201)(emphasisinoriginal;italicsadded). 7 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes unrelated settlementagreementthathasno bearing on Quadranet'sability and alleged obligation to im plem ent sim ilar measures. Thus, after putting aside TorGuard's Facts and Sharktech's settlem entagreem ent,Plaintiffsprovide no new evidence to disruptthe Co 'urt's priorO rderthat theSAC failstoallegeany practicalmeasuresQuadranetcould havetaken. Even iftheCourtw ereto considerTorGuard'sFactsand Sharktech'ssettlem entagreem ent, theCourtisnotpersuaded thatnull-routing IP addresses isa practicalm easureto police infringing activity considering Quadranet'scontention thatits IP addresses are dynam ic and thateach IP addresshasmultipleendusers.SeeECFNo.(189jat7.Further,assumingforthesakeofargument thatQuadranetcould null-routeaspecificIPaddress- staticordynam ic- withoutinterferingwith other end users' legitimate use of the same IP address,Quadranet's actions would be wholly ineffective asthe copyrightinfringercould geta new IP addressto continue infringing Plaintiffs' cöpyrighted works.See id.at7-8.ln otherwords,null-routing an IP addressoran accountisnota practicalm easure to police infringing activity.A s such,the Courtfinds no reason to am end its prior O rder dçterm ining that Plaihtiffs failed to allege a S'practical ability to police infringing activitiesof(thirdpartiesj.''SeeECFNo.(1731at31(citingVenusFashions,Inc.v.ContextLogic, lnc.,No.3:l6-CV-907-J-39MCR,2017W L 2901695,at*12 (M .D.Fla.Jan.17,2017)).Since Plaintiffs failed to allege a practicalability to police infringing activity even if the infringing activity wasknown to Quadranet,theCourtneed notaddressPlaintiffs'argum entthatQuadranet had notice of the specific infringing activity or was w illfully blind to the infringing activity. Therefore,Plaintiffs'M otion on thism atterisdenied.s 5Asafinalnote, Plaintiffsclaim thatthet çfilter''QtladranetcanapplyluakesQuadranetacomputersystem operatorsimilartoGoogle.ECF No.g180)at7.Plaintiffsareunpersuasive,however,becausethey donot explainwhytheabilitytoapplyafiltersomehow makesQuadranetacomputersystem operatorcomparable to Google as opposed to a provider ofservers.Furtherm ore,this argumentdoes notchange the Court's analysisoritsoverallconclusion. 8 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes B. Encryption by Quadranet'sSubscribers Next,PlaintiffsarguethattheCourterred inpresum ing thatallofQuadranet'sstlbscribers encrypttheirend users'online activity and concluding thatQuadranetwasunaware ofspecific copyrightinfringement.SeeECFNo.El801at8-9.PlaintiffsarguethatQtladranet'ssubscribersdo notalwaysencrypttheirendusers'onlineactivity becauseatleastoneofQuadranet'ssubscribers - nam ely TorG uard - m akes available unencrypted proxy servers for its end users.See id. Therefore,PlaintiffsarguethatQuadranthad specificknowledgeofcopyrightinfringementto establish culpable intentin suppol'tofPlaintiffs'contributory copyrightinfringem entclaim based upon a m aterialcontribution.See id. Quadranet responds that Plaintiffs improperly raise a new argument that some of Qtladranet'ssubscribersmaynotencrypttheirendusers'onlineactivity.SeeECFNo.(189)at10. QuadranetalsoarguesthatevenifsomeofQuadranet'ssubscribersmakeavailabletheoptionto use unencrypted proxy servers,the SA C fails to allege w hat portion of the end users,if any, actually used the proxy servers,whetherQuadranethosted TorGuard'sproxy serversin addition toTorGuard'smain servers,and whetherQuadranetcould view the end users'onlineactivity on TorGuard'sproxy serversifQuadranethostedthem.See id.at10-11.Further,even ifthe end users'online activity on the proxy servers were unencrypted,given Plaintiffs'theol-y that the alleged infringement occurred through BitTorrent - a protocolthat breaks dow n files that are subsequently transferred inindecipherable(tchunks''- Quadranetwouldhaveonly seenisunusable chunksofonesand zeroes''ratherthan a com plete copiesofPlaintiffs'copyrightéd w orks.See id. at 1l.Therefore,Quadranetarguesthatithad no specific knowledge ofcopyrightinfringement required forculpable intent.See id.at 10-11. Plaintiffsreply thatthey alleged in the SA C thatTorG uard offersa ddlightw eightsolution'' proxyserver.SeeECFNo.(202)at4-5 (citingECF No.(96)!! 10s,262,398).Plaintiffsalso Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes maintainthattheyhavenew evidencethatnearlyforty(40)percentofthenoticessenttoQuadranet concerned copyrightinfringementon TorGuard'sunencryptedproxy serversand thatsixty (60) percentof allcopyright infringem entnotices concerned TorGuard.See id.at5.W ith regard to Quadranet's contention that the BitTon-ent protocol only allows for the transm ission of indecipherable Csunusable chunkgsl,''Plaintiffs argue,forthe firsttime in theirReply,that Quadranet could have monitored publicly available dçtrackers'' to determine IP addresses broadcasted as pirating Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and cross-referenced its IP addresses to confirm any infringing activity.1d. at 5-6.ln addition, Plaintiffs argue for the first tim e that Quadranetcouldhaveperfolnneda(tdeeppacketinspection''oftheSsunusablechunkgsl''toconfirm thatthedata transm issionswere partsofPlaintiffs'copyrighted works.1d.at6.Plaintiffsalso rely onBloisv.Friday 6l2F.2d 938,940 (5th Cir.1980),toarguethattûatechnicalerrororaslight mistakeby(aparty'slattorneyshouldnotdepriveEthepartyjofanoppol-tunitytopresentthetrue m eritsofhisclaim s-''1d.at5. TheCourtagreeswith Quadranet.First,theSAC allegesthatTorGuard offersaproxy server asa 'slightweightsolution,''butthatallegation isnotan allegation thatTorGuard offersan unencryptedserver.SeeECFNo.(202)at4-5(citingECFNo.(96)!!108,262,398).TheSAC failstoallegethattheSdlightweightsolution''isan unencrypted server.SeeECFNo.(961!! l08, 262,398.Plaintiffs are essentially raising a novelargum entin theirM otion forReconsideration that a Ctlightweight solution''is an unencrypted server,which, if true,should have been raised previously.Wilchombe,555F.3dat957.Toputitsimply,iûgplartieswho ignoreargumentsmade by their opponents do so attheir ow n periland should notrely on the restrictive standard of a m otion forreconsideration to provide them w ith a second bite atthe apple.''In re Horizon, 2014 W L 2758805,at*5.Further,Plaintiffs'reliance on Blois,612 F.2d at940,to arguethat1$atechnical errorora slightm istake''should notdeprive Plaintiffsofan opportunity to presentthe truem erits 10 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes oftheirclaim sisunavailing.ln Blois,theplaintiff'scounselneglected to file anotice ofhischange ofaddress,which caused a (tshortdelay''w hen the plaintifffiled hism otion,and the Fifth Circuit held thatthe SGshortdelay''did notjustify the districtcourt'sdecision to entera finaldefault summaryjudgment.612 F.2d at940.TheCoul' tconsidersashol'tdelay infilingamotiontobe m aterially differentfrom failing to raisean argum entin responseto a motion to dism iss. Second,even iftheCoul' twereto assum eforthesakeofargum entthatthe SAC'Sreference to a 'slightw eight solution''constituted an alltgation that TorG uard offers unencrypted proxy servers,Quadranetcoriectly arguesthatPlaintiffsprovidenoevidenceonwhatportionoftheend users,ifany,used the proxy servers,thatQuadranethostedtheproxy serversin addition to other serversprovidingVPN services,andwhetherQuadranetcouldview theendusers'onlineactivity on the proxy selwersifQuadranethosted them.SeeECF No.g189jat10-1l.Asnoted above, Plaintiffs'argumentthatQuadranethosted theproxy serversandthatforty (40%)perèentofthe noticessentto Quadranetwereonunencryptedtraffic arebasedon TorGuard'sFacts.SeeECF N0.(202)at5 (citing ECF Nos.g200-11! 8,(202-31!(!3-5,8).6Such evidenceisnotproperly before the Coul' t. Third,the Courtreiterates that Plaintiffs'theory of liability relies on BitTorrent,w hich merelyallowsforthetransferofunusableCtpieces''orltchunkgsl''ofcopyrightedmaterialsthatare recombinedafterward.ECFNo.(961!148;seealsoECFNo.(173)at26-27(citingIngenuity 13 (notingthat''unusablechunkgsjofzeroesandones''aretransferredusingtheBitTorrentprotocoll). Therefore,even ifthe Sipieces''orSschunkgsj''were transferred on unencrypted servers,the SAC failsto allege how Quadranetcould have known thatthe Sschunklsj''ofdata were Plaintiffs' copyrightedworks.Seegenerally ECFNo.(964.Plaintiffs'argumentthatQuadranetcouldhave 6TheDeclaration ofCulpeppercitestoTorGuard'sFacts. SeeECFNo.(202-3)!!3-5,8. CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes implementedadditionalmeasures- suchasproactivelyresearchingpubliclyavailableirackersand cross-referencing its IP addresses to confirm infringing activity or perform ing a (ddeep packet inspection''- are also new argum entsthatPlaintiffsfailed to raise in the SA C ortheirResponseto theM otiontoDismiss.ECFNo.(202)at5-6.Further,theCourtisnotawareof,andPlaintiffsdo notcite,pertinentlegalauthoritythatrequiresQuadrantto implementsuchm easurestoproactively seek specific knowledge of copyright infringem ent.See id.at 6.? Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to allegeintheirSAC thatQuadranethadspecificknowledgeofcopyrightinfringement,whichisan elem entrequired to prove culpable intentfora claim ofcontributory copyrightinfringem entbased upop a m aterialcontribution.' Further,astheCourtnoted in itspriorOrder,even ifPlaintiffssatisfactorily alleged specific know ledgeofcopyrightinfringem ent,Plaintiffs'claim ofcontributory copyrightinfringem entstill fails.Plaintiffsm ustalso allege thatQuadranetcould have taken practicalm easuresto prevent further infringem ent, which is an elem ent required to im pute culpable intent from specific knowledge.SeeECFNo.(173jat27,n.l6(citingPelfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,487F.3d 701,729(9thCir.2007)).However,asdiscussedintheCoul-t'spriorOrderandaddressedabove, the SAC fails to allege thatQuadranetcould have taken practicalmeasures to prevent further infringem ent.See id. 7 Plaintiffs cite M alibu M edia,LLC v.John Does l through 10,N o.2:12-CV-3623-ODW ,2012 W L 5382304,at*2 (C.D.Cal.June 27,2012),butthe case doesnotimpose an obligation on entitieslike Quadranettotake measuresto proactively seek specificknowledgeofcopyrightinfringement.SeeECF No.(2021at6.Thecasemerely notesthattheplaintiff,notthedefendants,took proactivestepsto detect copyrightinfringement.SeeM alibuM edia,2012 W L 5382304,at*2. 8TheCourtdeclinestoconsiderthearticlethatPlaintiffscitefrom December2018,becauseitwasnotcited inPlaintiffs'ResponseinOppositiontoQuadranet'sM otiontoDismisseventhoughitwasavailableatthat time.SeeECFNo.(180)at8. 12 Case N o.2l-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes C . Availability ofCom plete Copies ofCopyrighted W orks Plaintiffsarguethatthe Coul'terred in assum ing thatpiecesofthe copyrighted w orksw ere combined solely on the end users' computers and that Quadranet never had access to the copyrightedworks.SeeECFNo.gl801at9.PlaintiffsmaintainthatsomeofTorGuard'sendusers used TorGuard'sproxy servershosted by Quadranetand thatpieces of Plaintiffs'copyrighted workswerecom bined on theproxy servers,thusm aking available com plete copiesofcopyrighted workson Quadranet'sservers.Seeid.Plaintiffsalsoextrapolatefrom QuadranetCEO'sstatement thatsome ofQuadranet'sserverscan beused d&to hostan online video game''and thatother j . ' ctlstom ers'sm ay storehealthcarerecords''to arguethatcom plete copiesofcopyrightedw orksw ere stored on Quadranet'sservers.See id.at9-10 (quoting ECF No.(108-1j! 18).Plaintiffsaver, therefore,thattheCourtshouldnothaveconcludedthattheSAC failstoallegethatQuadranethad specific know ledge ofcopyrightinfringem ent.See id.at 11. Quadranet argues that Plaintiffs' own argumerits tlndermine their contention that copyrighted works were combined on Quadranet's servers.See ECF No. (189j at 11-12. TorGuard'sproxy serversallow end usersto ittunnelall...torrenttrafficthrough a secureserver.'' 1(iat11(quotingECFNo.g180jat9(quotingECFNo.g148-7))).QuadranetarguesthatPlaintiffs' claim thatS'unusable chunkgsl''ofcopyrighted works Cçtunnel...through''theproxy servers indicates thatcom plete copies were not com bined on its servers but m erely passed through the proxy servers.f#.at11-12.Therefore,QuadranetarguesthattheCourtcorrectly determined that theSAC failstoallegethatQuadranethadspecitscknowledgeofcopyrightinfringementandthat Plaintiffsareattemptingtomakean'ûincredibleEinferentiallleap''despitebeingawareofthebasic functionality ofaserver.Id. Plaintiffs reply by insisting that it is not an incredible leap to presum e that copies of copyrightedworkscould berecombinedonQuadranet'sservers.SeeECF No.(2021at7.Plaintiffs Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes arguethatCtgaltthekery least,thepieceswouldbecopiedwhenthey passed throughtheproxy server.''fJ.at7.In addition,Plaintiffs argue forthe fsrsttim e thatifa subscriberused the proxy servertooperateaEtseedbox,''thecopyrighteéworkscouldhavebeenrecombinedonQuadranet's server.fJ.at7. TheCourtagreeswithQuadranet.Simplyput,theSAC doesnotallegethatthecopyrighted workswererecombinedon Quadranet'sservers.Seegenerally ECFNo.(96j.QuadranetCEO's statem entthatsom e serverscould be used to hostan online video gam e orstore healthoare records does not suppol' t Plaintiffs' specific contention that copyrighted works w ere recom bined on Quadranet'sselwers.To the extentthatPlaintiffsrely on a proxy serversetling thatallowsend users to ditunnel''BitTorrenttrafGc Ssthrough''TorG uard's proxy servers,a plain reading ofthe proxy serversettings and instructions does notsuppol' tPlaintiffs'claim thatcopyrighted w orks wererecombinedonQuadranet'sserversbutinsteadindictesthatpiecesofthecopyrightedworks merelypassedthroughtheproxyservers.SeeECFNos.(96)jg262,(148-7)at2.Further,Plaintiffs' argum entregarding theuseofproxy serversto operatea seedbox isanew argum entthatPlaintiffs raise forthe firsttim e in theirReply and is notalleged in the SAC . Seegenerall yECFNo.g96). Lastly,becausetheCoul' tdeclinestoconsiderTorGuard'sFacts,whichQtladranetdidnotstipulate to and are notproperly before the Court,Plaintiffsprovide no evidentiary supportfortheirclaim thatTorGuard'sproxy serversareunencrypted,thatQuadranethostedTorGuard'sproxy servers, orthatTorGuard'send usersactually used TorGuard's proxy servers.ln sum , the Cou14 findsno reason to reconsiderits priorOrderdeterm ining thatcomplete copies ofcopyrighted w orksw ere notavailableon Quadranet'sservers. ln addition,asnoted above and in the Court'spriorOrder,even ifPlaintiffs satisfactorily alleged specific knùwledge, Plaintiffs'claim of contributory copyright infringem ent still fails. Plaintiffsmustalso allege thatQuadranetcould havetaken practicalm easuresto preventfurther Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes infringement.SeeECFNo.(173)at27,n.16(citingPelfect10,487F.3dat729).TheSAC failsto sufficiently allege that Quadranet could have taken practical measures to prevent further infringement.SeegenerallyECFNo.(962. D. Claim sofDirectlnfringementAgainstQuadranet'sSubscribers Plaintiffsarguethatthe Coul'tm istakenly statesthatPlaintiffsdo notassertclaim sofdirect copyrightinfringementagainstQuadranet'ssubscribers.SeeECFNo.(180)at10-11.According to Plaintiffs,the SAC asserts claims of direct copyright infringement against Quadranet's subscribers,Plaintiffs thusadequately allege thatQuadranetreceived a directfinancialinterest from its subscribers' direct copyright infringement, and the Court should not have dism issed Plaintiffs'claim ofvicariouscopyrightinfringementagainstQuadranet.SeeftfQuadranetargues thatPlaintiffs'decision to shifttheirclaim sagainstDoes 1-100 and claim thatQuadranet'sother subscribers engaged in direct copyright infringem ent is not credible and contradicts Plaintiffs' theoryofcopyrightinfringement.SeeECFNo.(189)at12-13. First,the Courtaddw sses Plaintiffs'argum ent regarding D oes 1-100.Plaintiffs concede that they are unsure about the identity of Does 1-100 and whether they are internet service providersorendusers.SeeECFNo.(180jat11.Despitetheirownuncertainty,itisindisputable thattht SAC alleges thatDoes l-100 are internd service providersw hose custom ers are the end users.SeeECF No.(96)!! 1l0-l1.Therefore,theCoul-tconcludedin itspriorOrderthatifthe SAC allegedthatSdDoes1-100infringedonPlaintiffs'copyrightsgasendusersandjasQuadranet's subscribersandpaidQuadranetdirectly,thenPlaintiffs'claim thatQuadranetbenefitteddirectly from theinfringing activity would bemorepersuasive.''ECF No.(173)at29,n.17.However, because D oes 1-100 w ere not alleged to be end users, who had com m itted direct copyright infringem ent,butw ere instead alleged to be internetservice providers whose ow n end users had committed directcopyrightinfringem ent,Plaintiffs'argumentthatQuadranetreceived a direct Case No.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes financialinterestfrom Does l-l00's end users'directcopyrightinfringem entwas unpersuasive. ' See id. Plaintiffs now appearto argue thatthe SA C allegesthatD oes l-100 are internetservice providers w ho directly infringed on Plaintiffs' copyrighted works,despite not being end users themselves.See ECF No. (180j at 10-11. However,the Court is not persuaded by the recharacterization ofD oes 1-100 as internetservice providerswho som ehow directly infringed on Plaintiffs'copyrighted w orks,despite not being end users,in lightofthe plain language of the SAC andPlaintiffs'theoryofliability.SeeECFNo.(96)!!110-11.Plaintiffs'theoryofcopyright infringem entthatend users used the BitTorrentprotocolto infringe Plaintiffs'copyrighted works underm inesPlaintiffs'claim thatDoes 1-100 engaged in directcopyrightinfringem entdespitenot being end users. Further,althotlgh Plaintiffsargue thatthey did notàssel' ttheirdirectcopyrightinfringem ent claim againstDoes 1-100 in a conclusory fashion,the SA C and Plaintiffs'M otion only present allegations concerning LiquidvpN and TorGuard's direct copyright infringem ent,not Does 1- l00'sdirectcopyrightinfringement.SeeECFNos.(961!394-98(failingtoprovideanyallegation againstDoes 1-100),(180qat 10-1l.Assuch,even ifthe SAC alleged thatDoes 1-100 are som ehow direct infringers despite notbeing end users,Plaintiffs'claim s ofdirect infringem ent againstDoes 1-100 are alleged in an unpersuasive,conclusory fashion. The Courtnow turnsto Plaintiffs'argumentthatQuadranet's othersubscribers,namely LiquidvpN and TorGuard,committed directcopyrightinfringementand paid Quadranetforits services.In the Order,the Courtdid notconsider Plaintiffs'allegationsagainstother subscribers fortheiralleged directcopyrightinfringem entbecause Plaintiffs'theory ofliability wasbased on end usersinfringingonPlaintiffs'copyrightedworks.SeeECFNo.(173jat28-30.However,to the extent that Plaintiffs seek clarification of the Court's im plied reasoning,the Courtm akes 16 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes express in this OrderthatPlaintiffs'own theory ofliability againstthose subscribers underm ines Plaintiffs'claim thatthose subscribersdirectly infringed on Plaintiffs'copyrights.A snoted above, theBitTon-entprotocolallowsQuadranet'ssubscribers'enduserstotransfercopyrightedworks with otherBitTorrentusers;itdoesnotallow Quadranet'ssubscribersto obtain completecopies ofthecopyrightedworkstodisseminatethemselves.ECF No.(96)! 159-64;seealsoECFNo. (1731at26-27(citingIngenuit y 13LLC v.Doe,No.212-CV-08333-ODW -JC,2013WL 765102, at*3(C.D.Cal.Feb.7,20l3)(notingthat'çunusablechunkgs)ofzeroesandones''aretransferred usingthe BitTorrentprotocoll).Plaintiffs'claim thatQuadranet'ssubscribersareliablefordirect copyright infringem ent belies Plaintiffs' ow n theory of liability. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to adequately allegethatQuadranetreceivedadirectfinancialbenefitfrom itssubscribers. Lastly,even ifthe Courtw ere to determ ine thatthe SAC alleged thatsom e subscribers, such asLiquidvpN ,allowed tlzeirend usersto dow nload Plaintiffs'copyrighted w orksoutside the BitTorrent protocol,g or determ ine that som e of the subscribers' conduct in relation to the BitTorrentprotocolcould be considered directcopyright infringem ent,Plaintiffs failto persuade the Coul' tthatthe SAC alleged practicalmeasures Quadranet could have taken to police the infringingactivities.SeeECFNo.(1734at29,n.17(notingthatPlaintiffs'vicariousinfringement claim against Quadranet must be dismissed for failing to allege practical measures to stop infringingactivitiesevenifthesubscriberswereliablefordirectcopyrightinfringement).Assuch, Plaintiffs'objectiontotheCourt'sdeterminàtionregarding Plaintiffs'claim ofdirectcopyright infringementagainstQuadranet'ssubscribersdoesnotdisturbtheCourt'soverallconclusionthat thevicariouscopyrightinfringementclaim ' againstQuadranetmustbedismissedwithprejudice. 9GiventheshotgunnatureoftheSAC, itisdifficulttoascertain whethertheSAC allegesthatLiquidvpN 's end userssim ilarly used BitTorrentorinstead downloaded copyrighted works outside ofthe Bit-forrent protocol.SeeECF No.(96)!284. Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLOO M /Otazo-Reyes E. Failure to Plead C ontributory and Vicarious Copyrightlnfringem ent Plaintiffs contend thatthe Court's dism issaloftheircontributory and vicarious copyright infringem entclaim sw aserroneous based on theirargum ents above.See ECF N o. (180)atl1-12. Plaintiffsfurtherarguethatthe Coul'tshould atleastperm itPlaintiffsto t5lean am ended complaint. Id.at12.How ever,asnoted above,Plaintiffs'argum ents are ultim ately unavailing, and the Court seesno reason to am end itspriorO rderdism issing Plaintiffs'contributory and vicariouscopyright infringem entclaim s.Further,a fourth com plaintw ould likely befutile. To the extentthatPlaintiffs w ould attempt to include allegations drawn from TorGuard's Facts, the Court has already addressed why TorGuard's Factsw ould notsave Plaintiffs'claim s even ifthey were considered. In addition,any allegation drawn from Sharktech'ssettlem entagreem entisinappositeto Plaintiffs' claimsagainstQuadranet.Assuch,the CourtdeniesPlaintiffs'requestto allow Plaintiffsto repleadtheircontributoryandvicariouscopyrightinfringementèlaimsagainstQuadranetbecause Plaintiffs'fourth com plaintwould likely notsurvive anotherm otion to dism iss. SeeH allv.United Ins.Co.ofzqln.,367F.3d 1255,1262(1lthCir.2004)(denyingtheplaintiffanopportunitytofile anotheram ended complaintw hen the previous am ended com plaint did notcontain m eritorious claims). F. Exercise ofSupplem entalJurisdiction Plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that the Court should have declined to exercise supplementaljurisdictionoverPlaintiffs'remaining statelaw claimsafterdislnissingPlaintiffs' federallaw claims.SeeECF No.(180jat12-13.Plaintiffsargue thatthe Court'sexercise of supplementaljurisdiction wasbased on the mistaken premise thatthe Partieshave conducted ' discovery. See id.Plai extensive ntiffs also note thatQuadranetargued againstthe exercise of supplementaljurisdiction in itspriorpleading.Seeid.(citingECF No.gl081at37).Quadranet responds that it has engaged in significant discovery, and that irrespective of w hether it has 18 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes engaged in significantdiscovery,the Eleventh Circuithas recognized thatdistrictcourts can use theirdiscretion(ttoexercisejurisdictionoverstatelaw claimsinacaseevenafterdismissingthe federalclaim thatcreatedoriginaljurisdiction.''ECFNo.(189qat13-14 (quotingBravov.foorTuarez,727F.App'x572,576(11thCir.2018)). The Courtagreeswith Quadranet.Asthe Courtstated in itspriorOrder,the Eleventh Circuithasheldthattheexerciseofsupplementaljurisdictionlaysin (sconsiderationsofjudicial economy,convenienceg,)fairnesstolitigantsandcomity.''ECFNo.(173jat32(quotingIngram v.SchoolBoardofMiami-DadeCounty,167F.App'x.107,l08(1lthCir.2006)).Simplyput, Plaintiffsfailto explain why this Court'sexercise ofsupplementaljul-isdiction isnotfairto Plaintiffsorwhyfurtheradjudicationinstatecourtswouldcureanyperceivedunfairness.SeeECF Nos.(180)at12-13,(202jat9-l0.lnaddition,theCourtstatedinitspriorOrderthatGdgbjecause oftheamountoftimeandeffortthePartiesandtheCourthaveexpended in developingthiscase, judicialeconomyconsiderationsweighagainstdismissal.''ECFNo.(173)at32(emphasisadded). Irrespectiveofthe extentofdiscovery thathastaken place,Plaintiffsofferno m eaningfulargum ent astowhyjudicialeconomy considerationsweighinfavorofdismissal,especiallysincetheCourt hasexpended the tim e and effortto resolve a1lclaim s and thereby saved the Parties and Florida state courts from having to re-litigate closely related claim s.M oreover,the Courtreasoned thatat the time ofthe Court'sprior Order,Sçthe case stillinvolvegdjpending claims againstother Defendants,nam ely TorGuard and Does 1-100.''1d.Plaintiffsacknow ledge thissecond reason for theCoul-t'sdçcisiontoexercisesupplementaljurisdiction,seeECF No.(180jat12 (notingthat theCourt'sdecisionwasbasedon(dtworeasons''),butfailtoaddresswhythesecondreasonshould notbe given any weight.A ssuch,Plaintiffs'requeston thism atterisdenied. 19 V Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLO OW Otazo-Reyes G . M isidentification ofPlaintiffs Lastly,PlaintiffsarguethattheCourtmisidentifiedcertainPlaintiffs.SeeECFNo.(180) at3-4.Plaintiffsarguethat42 Ventures,LLC nevermadeclaimsagainstQuadranet.See id.at3. Plaintiffs A fter Productions, LLC, SF Film , LLC, and State of the Union D istributions and Collections,LLC dism issed theirclaimsagainstQuadranet.See / W.at3-4.PlaintiffsHunterKiller Productions,Inc.,21lProductions,lnc.,andM illennium SPVH,lnc.didnotjointheSAC.Seeid. at4. QuadranetfirstarguesthattheSAC doesnotidentifywhichPlaintiffsareassertingclaims againstQuadranetandtlrepeatedlylumpgsl''a1lthePlaintiffstogether,creatingtheimpressionthat 42Ventures,LLCjoinedtheotherPlaintiffsinassertingclaimsagainstQuadranet.SeeECFNo. (189jat 14-16.As such,Quadranetsoughtdismissalofççallclaims by allofthe Plaintiffs'' including 42 Ventures,LLC.f#.atl7 (citing ECF No.gl08)at l2)(emphasis in original). QuadranetnotesthatPlaintiffs,in turn,failed to arguethat42 Ventures,LLC nevermadeclaims againstQuadranetintheirResponsetoQuadranet'sMotiontoDismiss.Seeid.at17-18.Therefore, QuadranetarguesthatPlaintiffsareprohibited from raisinganew argumentthat42Ventures,LLC shouldnotbeincludedinthecollectivedefinitionofPlaintiffs.Seeid.Next,Quadranetarguesthat although After Productions, LLC, SF Film ,LLC, and State of the Union D istributions and Collections,LLC,dismissed theirclaimsagainstQuadranet,they soughtpermanentinjunctive reliefagainstQuadranet,aftertheyfiledtheirnoticeofvoluntarydismissal.Seeid.at18-19(citing ECF No.(1251at21).Therefore,the Court's Orderdismissing a1lclaims broughtby After Productions,LLC,SF Film ,LLC,and State ofthe Union D istributions and Collections,LLC,is also appropriate as itdismisses those Plaintiffs'requestfora permanent injunction against Quadranet.See id.at 18-19.Quadranet does not,however,dispute that the Order should be 2 0 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes am ended to rem oveH unterK illerProductions,lnc.,21lProductions,lnc.,and M illennium SPV H , Inc.See id.at19. The CourtreiteratesthatPlaintiffs'SAC is a shotgun pleading.loIn lightofthe deficient pleading,Quadranetreasonably soughtthe diymissalofGçallclaimsby alIofthePlaintiffs.''ECF No.(108jat12.However,consideringPlaintiffs'belatedclarificationregardingwhichPlaintiffs asserted claimsagainstQuadranet,the Courtam endsitspriorOrder.The Court'spriorOrderis am ended to exclude 42 Ventures,LLC,AfterProductions,LLC,SF Film ,LLC,State ofthe Union D istributions and Collections,LLC,HunterK iller Productions,Inc.,211 Productions,Inc., and Millennium SPVH,lnc.in itscollectivedefinitionofPlaintiffs.See ECF No.(173jat1-2.To clarify,the remaining Plaintiffs'claimsagainstQuadranetare dismissed with prejudice,and becausePlaintiffsconcedethatthemisidentifiedPlaintiffsdidnotassertaclaim againstQuadranet, therearenooutstandingclaimsagainstQuadranet. H . Claim sA gainstLiquidv pN Defendantsand FinalJudgm ent The dismissalofallclaims against Quadranet and TorGuard leaves only defaulting Defendants Charles M uszynski,LiquidvpN ,and AUHZO,LLC (collectively,dçLiquidvpN Defendants'')asthenamed Defendantsinthiscase.Assuch,theCou14now turnsto Plaintiffs' claim s against the LiquidvpN Defendants,the M otion for Reconsideration of Order D enying MotionforDefaultJudgment,ECFNo.El681,andPlaintiffs'instantrequesttoclarifywhetherthe Court'spriorOrderonQuadranet'sMotiontoDismissisafinaljudgment,seeECFNo.(1734at 13-14. The Coul4 previously denied Plaintiffs' M otion for D efault Judgm ent against the LiquidvpN Defendantsduetotherisk ofinconsistentjudgments.SeeECF No.gl67q.Plaintiffs M illennium Funding,lnc.,Voltage Holdings,LLC, and 42 V entures, LLC filed a M otion for 10plaintiffsdo notobjecttotheCourt'sdeterluinationthattheSAC isashotgunpleading.Seegenerally ECF No.g180j. CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes Reconsideration ofOrderDenying M otion forDefaultJudgm ent,raising new argum entsthatthey failedtoraiseintheM otionforDefaultJudgment.SeegenerallyECFNo.(168j. Parties m ay not raise new argum ents in a m otion for reconsideration thatthey failed to raise,see Wilchombe,555 F.3d at957.However,afterthe dism issalofQuadranetandTorGuard, theCourtagreesthatthereisnolongerariskofinconsistentjudgmentswithrespecttotheclaims fortrademarkinfringement,federalunfaircompetition,breachofcontract,unjustenrichment,and breach of publicity rights againstthe Liquidv pN Defendants.N evertheless,the Courtsees no reason to reconsider the Court's Order on Plaintiffs'M otion forD efaultJudgm entbecause the Courtexpressly stated thatPlaintiffs would be perm itted to file an am ended m otion for default judgmentafterafinaldispositiononthemeritsofthecase.SeeECFNo.(167)at9. To thatend,the Courtdeniesthe M otion forReconsideration ofOrderD enying M otion for DefaultJudgment,buttheCourtclarifiesthattheCoul-t'sOrderon Qtladranet'sM otiontoDismiss, ECFNo.(1731,aswellastheOrderofDismissalwithPrejudiceastoDefendantVpNetworks Only,ECF No.(2011,constitute afinaldisposition onthemeritsofPlaintiffs'claimsagainst QuadranetandTorGuard.Assuch,Plaintiffsshallt5leanamendedmotionfordefaultjudgmentin accordancewiththeCourt'sOrderonDefaultJudgmentProcedure,ECFNo.(1l3j,andsetfol' th why there is no longer a possibility of inconsistent liability for each claim asserted against the LiquidvpN Defendants. Dism issalofDoes 1-100 As a tsnalnote,Plaintiffsassertclaim s againstDoes 1-100,w ho have notbeen identified andagainstwhom summonseshavenotbeenissued.FederalRuleofCivilProcedure4(m)requires serviceofthesum monsand complaintto beperfected upon defendantswithin ninety (90)days afterthe filing of the complaint.Plaintiffs filed the SAC on August 17,2021,ECF No.g96j, generating a N ovem ber l5,2021 service deadline.To date,Plaintiffs have not filed proposed 22 Case N o.21-cv-20862-BLO OM /Otazo-Reyes sum m onsesforD oes1-l00 orshow n good cause.ln addition,there is no evidence in the record of anyfactorthatwouldotherwisejustifyapermissiveextensionoftimetoserveabsentashowing ofgood cause such as expiration ofthe applicable statute oflim itations,orthatD oes 1-100 are evading service or concealing a defectin attem pted servicè.A s such,the claim s againstDoes 1- l00aredismissedwithoutprejudice. IV. CO NC LU SIO N Accordingly,itisO RD ER ED AND ADJUD GED asfollow s: TheM otionforReconsideration ofOrderGrantingDefendantsQuadranet,lnc.'s and Quadranet Enterprises, LLC'S Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. (1801, is G R ANTED IN PA RT A ND D EN IED IN PART . TheCourtamendsthe Court'sOrderon Quadranet'sM otion toDismiss,ECF No.(173)atl-2,to exclude from the collective definit' ion ofPlaintiffs42 Ventures,LLC,After Productions,LLC, SF Film ,LLC,State of the U nion D istributions and Collections, LLC, Hunter K iller Productions, lnc., 211 Productions,lnc.,and M illennium SPV H,Inc. b. TheCourtclarifiesthatthe Coul4'sOrderon Quadranet'sM otion to Dismiss, ECFNo.g173j,isafinaldispositiononthemeritsofPlaintiffs'claimsagainst Quadranet. The M otion is DEN IED in al1otherrespects. 2. TheM otion forReconsideration ofOrderDenying M otion forDefaultJudgment, ECF No.11681,isDENIED. The M otion to StrikePlaintiffs'Reply and A ccom panying D eclarations in Suppol't ofPlaintiffs'M otion forReconsideration oftheDism issalOrder,ECF No.12071, isDENIED A S M O OT . 23 CaseN o.21-cv-20862-BLOOM /Otazo-Reyes 4. Plaintiffsshallt5lean am ended M otion forDefaultJudgm entforal1claim sasserted againsttheLiquidkpN DefendantsonorbeforeM arch29,2022. 5. Plaintiffs' claim s against Does l-100 are DISM ISSED W ITH OU T PREJUDICE . D O NE AND O RD ER ED in Cham bers atM iam i,Florida,on M arch 18,2022. BETH BLO O M UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG E Copies to: CounselofRecord 24
]]>
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.
