Cancian v. Hannabass and Rowe, Inc et al, No. 7:2018cv00283 - Document 26 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/11/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D ISTRICT COU RT FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA RO AN O U D IW SIO N r-lFRK' S oyFlcE tJ.s.Dlsm K URT ATROANOKE,VA FILED pE: 1'1 2212 JUL 0. DLEX CLERK BK ALLE SAN D RO CAN CIAN , D P4 C Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.7:18-cv-00283 V. I-IAN N ABASS AN D ROW E ,LTD ., and LIN D SAY M ICH ELLE STIN SON , D efendants. By: M ichaelF.U tbansld ClliefU.S.Districtludge M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Thism atttrcom esbeforethe courton D efendantHannabass& Rowe,Ltd.'s rTHannabass'')andDefendantLindsayMichelleSdnson'stffsHnson')M odonstoDismiss, lloth Sled on O ctober 16,2018.ECF N o.17-19ECF N o.18-1.PlaindffAllesandro Cancian rTlaintifp?orTfcancian'')flledtheoriginalcompbintitlthissuitonlune20,2018. *ECF No. 1.Plainéffflled theam ended com plaintagznstD efendantson O ctobez2,2018.ECF N o. 16.ln responseto D efendants'm otionsto disrniss,PlaindffAllesandro Cancian flled a m em orandum in opposiéon on October30,2018.ECF N o.23.Forthezeasonsstated below,the courtnow D E N IE S D efendants'm odons. Cancian v. Hannabass and Rowe, Inc et al Doc. 26 Tlliscaseadsesfrom allegedcopyrightinftingement.Plaindffisayhotographerwho zegistered aphotogtaph with theUnited StatesCopydghtO fhce on M ay 5,2017.Cancian posted hiscopyrighted photograph on thew ebsitew wm soopx.com on M atch 17,2012. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffallegesthe copyrightwasinftinged when D efendantsfTcopied and posted thephoto on Hannabass'commercialwebsitey''Tron oraboutNovember23,2015.':ECF No.16,! 11. H annabassisacorporation form ed underthelaw sofVirginia,headquartered in Roanoke,Virginiaandspecializingin carrepair.ECF No.16,T2.Stinsonwasthesoleowner andmemberofStinsonCommunicadonsLLC rfstinsonCommunicadons'),aVirgt 'm'a limitedliabilitycompany.ECF No.16,!12.Cancian contacted Stinson through counselon February 6,2017,requesdng both thatStinson rem ove the photo im m ediately and that Cancian receive com pensaéon fortheinfringem ent.ECF N o.18-5.Thephoto w asrem oved 29 dayslater.ECF N o.17-1,2. II. Rule129$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilPzocedtzrepet-mitsapattytomovefot disrnissalofacom plaintforfailure to state a clnim upon wlaich reliefcan begranted.To surviveamoéontodismissunderRule129$(6),theplaintiffmustpleadsufûcientfactsTfto raise arightto reliefabovethe speculative level''and ffstatea cbim to teliefthatisplausible onitsface.''BellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,5555570(2007).A plaintiff establishes(ffacialplausibilitf'bypleadingfrfactualcontentthatallowsthecourttodtaw the reasonableinference thatthe defendantisliable forthe misconductalleged.''Ashctoftv. Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).lnrulingona124$(6)modon,thecourtmustacceptall well-pleaded allegationsin thecom plnintastrueand draw allreasonable factazalinferencesin thelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiff.Ibarrav.United States,120F.3d 472,474 (4th Cir. 1997).However,Tfgtlhreadbaierecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofacéon,supportedby mereconclusorystatem ents,do notsufhce.''Lqb-al,556U.S.at6789seeW a M oreDo s 2 LLC v.Cozart,680F.3d359,365(4f.hCir.2012)(holdingthecourt(fneednotacceptlegal conclusionscouched asfactsorunwartanted inferences,unzeasonable conclusions,ot azplments'')(internalquotadonmarksomitted). 111. D efendantsH annabassand Sénson have both fzed m odonsto dism iss.These m oéonsV IIbeaddressed in turn.Asthe alleged acdonsofStinson Com m unicadonsgive riseto thissuit,Sdnson'sm odon willbe examined fust. A. In herm odon,Stinson argtzesthatshecannotbeheld individually liable foracéons perform ed by Stinson Com m unicaéonsbecause Stinson Com m unicaéonsisan LLC.An LLC,otLim ited Liability Com pany,isalegalendty sepatate from itsm em bersorowners. RemoraInves% ents,LLC v.Orr,277Va.316,322,673S.E.2d 845,847 (2009).An LLC thusshieldsitsm em bersfrom personalliability fortheacéonsoftheendty.Id.Plaindff's complaintallegesthatStinsonisfjointlyandseverallyliableforanydirectcopyright infringementcommitted byStinson CommunicaéonsLLC.''ECF No.16,$ 20.Plaindffalso allegesthatStinson isffvicariously liable''foztheacdonsofStinson Com m unicaéons.Id. Plaintiffdid not,however,nam e Stinson Com m unicaéonsasa defendantin thiscase,and instead nam ed Sdnson in herindividualcapacity,seeking to hold hetpetsonally liable.See ECF N o.16. O nly afew factualscenariospet-m itaplaindffto bypassthe sllield an LLC offersand hold themembersofthatLLC personallyliable.SeeIn reW hite,412B.R.860,865(Bankr. W .D.Va.2009)(staéngthelimitedcircumstancesjuséfyingthepiercing ofanLLC veil). First,am em berorofûcerofan LLC m aybe pursued individually foracdonstaken by the LLC when acourtdecidesto ffpiercetheveil.''ld.A courtm ay pierce theveilin thtee instances:1)ffwhen theunityofinterestand ownership issuch thattheseparatepersonalides ofthe (LLQ and theindividualsno longerexistand toadhereto thatseparatenesswould wozkanitjusécei''2)whetetheindividualsoughttobeheldliableattemptedtousetheLLC veiltoevadeapersonalobligadon,pememateafraudorcrime,commitanitjusdce,orgain anadvantage;and3)wheretheLLC'Sinabilitytosatisfyajudgmentagninstitistheresultof deliberateundercapitalizadon.ld.(quodngO'Hazzav.ExecudveCreditCo .246Va.111, 115,431S.E.2d318,320(1993));Danav.313Fzeemason,lnc..266Va.491,502,587S.E.2d 548,554 (2003). Plaintiffhaspled no factsindicating thatany oftheabove appEes.Instead,Plaindff statesthatSénson Com m unicaéonsno longerexists- indeed,Stinson Com m unicaéonswas cancened fornon-paymentoffeesonlanuary31,2017.ECF No.16,!13;ECF No.23-1. Tllisfacton itsown,however,doesnotexposeSénson to personalliability.Vitgm 'l 'a's LimitedLiabilityCompanyAct(theAct)statesthat,intheeventofautomaéccancelladonof anLLC'Sexistence(dueto,forexample,afailuretopayfees), ffN o m em ber, m anager, or other agent of a lim ited Iiability com pany shallhave any personalobligaéon for any liabiliées of the lim ited liability com pany, whether such liabilides adse in conttact,torq or otherwise,solely by reason ofthe cancelladon of the lim ited liability com pany's existence pursuant to this secdon.'' Va.CodeAnn.j13.1-1050.2(2013).Further,theActgoesontoprovidefotpotendal clnim antsin the eventofcancelladon,saying 4 <T he cancelladon of e'xistence of a lim ited liability com pany shallnottake away orim pair any tem edy available to or against the lim ited liability com pany or its m em bers or m anagers for any right or clnim exiséng,or any liability inctured,before the cancellation.'' vA.codeAnn.j13.1-1050.5(2013).Cancian'sphotoraphwasallegedlypostedon H annabass'websitein N ovem betof2015.D uting thistim e,Sdnson Com m unicadonswasa properly form ed and operadonalLLC ofVitgilaia.Thecancellaéon ofthatstatusdoesnot exposeSdnson to personalliabilitpl PlaindffalsoassertsthatSdnsonisbothfjointlyandseverallyliable''andffvicadously liable''fortheinfringem entofStinson Com m unicaéons.The CopyrightAct,asintem reted by the courts,extendspersonalliability fortheacdonsofcom oraéonsand LLCSunder certaincitcumstances.See17U.S.C.A.j501(a-b)(2002)rfAnyonewhoviolatesanyofthe exclusiverightsofthe copyrightownerasprovided by sections106 through 122 ...isan infringerofthe copyright....The legalorbenehcialownerofan exclusiverightundeta copyrightisendtled...to inséttztean action foran inftingement....>');UniversalFutnitare Jnt'l,Inc.v.Frankel,835F.Supp.2d35,50(M .D.N.C.2011),afpd,538F.App'x267(4th Cir.2013)(imposingpersonalliabilityon acorpozateofhcerforcopyrightinfdngementby thecorporadonl.lointand severalliabilityforacomorateofhcerin thecontextofcopyright infringem entwilllie ffw hetethe officerw asthe dom inantinfluencein the com otaéon,and 1In hism em o in opposidon to Sdnson'sm odon to dism iss,PlaindffpointsoutthatStinson Comm unicadonshad already been cancelled atthetim eherequested Stinson rem ove the photograph from H annabass'website and atthe tim e she did so,29 dayslater.Plaindffazguesthism akesherpersonallyliable fozherfailm e to ftfexpedidously'tem ovethe infringingworky''asrequizedby17U.S.C.j512(c)(2010).ECF No.23,8.Evenifthecourtacceptedthatremoval withinamonthisnotexpeclidous(andthereisnojuclicialconsensusontilispoint),Plaindffclidnotpleadsuchliabilil intheamendedcomplaint.SeeECFNo.16.SeealsoS uareRin Inc.v.Doe-l,No.CV 09-563(GMS)2015WL 307480,at*7@ .Del.Jan.23,2015)Soldingthatde6ningthete= 'fexpedidous''requiresafacmalanalysisandlacks legalprecedenttoprovideguidance).Thecouztclnnotinfercbimsfrom memorandllm ftleditlopposidontoan opposing party'sm odon. 5 determined thepolicieswllich resulted in theinfringem ent.''Broad M usic,Inc.v.It'sAm ore C-IIlgs,No.3:08CV570,2009WL 1886038(M.D.Pa.June30,2009)(citingSailorMusicv. . MZ KaiofConcord.lnc.,640 F.Supp.629,634 (D.N.H.1984).Vicatiousliabilityin the sam e contextwillliewhetea corporateoffcerpossessesboth therightand abilityto supervisetheinfzinging acdvity and an obviousand ditectfm ancialintezestin the exploited copydghted m aterials.zN elson Salabes lnc.v.M ornin sideD evelo m entaLLC,284 F.3d 505,513(4thCir.2002).SeealsoUniversalFurnitureIntern,835F.Supp.2dat50Solding thattheofficezofacloselyheldcompanythatwasthejudgmentdebtorforan$11million award fordam agesforthe infringem entofa copyrightholder'sfutnituredesignswas vicadously liable forthe com pany'sinfringem entbecause theofhcethad 170th theability to superdsethe distribution ofthe futniture and aEnancialintetestin exploidng the copyrighted furnitazte). Plaindffallegesin hiscom plaint,ffupon inform adon and belief,''thatSdnson m etthe criteria for130th form sofliability.The Twom bl -1 ba1standard doesnotbarpleaclings based upon inform ation and belief,though such pleaflingsareconsidered fftenuousatbest.'' Raub v.Bowen,960F.Supp.2d 602,615(E.D.Va.2013).A plainéffmaydo so ifheorshe isin a position ofuncertaintybecause thenecessary evidenceiscontrolled by the defendant. Itidenoutv.Muld-colorCo .,147F.Supp.3d452,456 (E.D.Va.2015)(cidngArista Records,LLC v.Doe3,604 F.3d 110,120 (2nd Cit.2010)rfx'heTwomblyplausibility standard ...doesnotpreventaplainéfffrom pleading factsalleged Tupon infof-maéon and 2Stinsonwastheownerand mem berofanLLC,notacom orateofEcer,butthelaw pertnining to liabilityform em bers ofan LLC generally m irrorsthatofcom oradons.See e.. Rem oraInvestm ents,277Va.at323,673 S.E.2d at848 (determiningwhethermanagersofLLCSoweitsmembezsfduciaryduéesthroughexaminadonofanalogouscorporate law);Ri ov.CSCAssociates1IIIJ-E,262Va.48,56-57,547S.E.2d216,221(comparingamanagerofanLLC toa comoratedirectorandprovidingamanagerofanIJ.Cthesameprotecdonsanddudesasacomoratedirector). beliefwherethefactsarepeculiarlywithinthepossessionandcontrolofthedefendant'). Certainly,infot-m adon zegarding who dete= ined policies,influenced operadons,supervised acdviées,and possessed hnancialintetestsin speciik m aterialsatanow cancezed LLC w otzld bein the controlofthe m em beritself- in thiscase,Sdnson.3Stinson arguesin response thatCancian wasprovided info= adon thatffdizectly conttadictslnisallegadons based upon inform adon and belief.''ECF N o.18-1,4.Bethatasitm ay,thesearenotthe factspled in theam ended com plaint,which the courtm ustassum e astruein tnlling on this modon.SeeECF No.16.Thefactspled aresuffkienttomoveto thenextstageoflitkadon. Sdnson also argues,<<Itisaxiom adc thatin orderforStinson to bevicadously liable fortheactionsofSdnson Com m unicationsLLC,theLLC m ustbenam ed asa defendant.'' ECF N o.18-1,4.O n the contrary,pbintiffsregularlybting clnim sagainstpardeson the basisofvicadousliability withoutnanning the directlyliableparty asa defendant.See e. ., Jaudonv.ElderHealth,Inc.,125F.Supp.2d.153(D.Md.2000)9GinaChin & Associates, Inc.v.FirstUrlionBank,260VA.533,537S.E.2d573(2000).Sdnsonatguesthatsome factsm ustbe alleged thatStinson Com m unicaéonsengaged in som eaction bywhich Sénson can be held individuallyliable,ECF N o.18-1,3-4.Atthisstagein theproceeding, thecourtisnotonly required to assum eallallegadonsin the com plaintare true,butto draw allreasonableinferencespossible from thecom plaintin theplaindff'sfavor.SeeIbarra,120 3' I' hecourtnotesthattheTwombl-1 ba1standazd stillrequiresthataplaindff,when plearlingfactsbasedon inform adon and belief,allegeenough lm derlying factsto allow aplausibleinference ofliability in the contextofhisor herparticularcbim.HTC Co .v.IPCOmGMBH & Co.KG,671F.Supp.2d146,149(D.D.C.2009)(citingExeten Co .v.Wal-Mat' tStoresInc.,575Fed.1312,1330(Fed.Cir.2009).Plaindff'scomplaint,itzitsrecitaloftherequired elementsofjointandseveralliabilityandvicaziousliabilityforcopyrkhtinfri ngement,comesdangerouslycloseto m issing tlkisthreshold.' I' hecourtholds,however,thatthe factspled zegarHing Stinson'srole in Stinson Comm llnicadons andthecopyrkhtinfringementalleged,whenasslxmedastrueandwhenallreasonableinferencesaredrawn,allows Plaindfftomeetthisstandazd,ifonlyjust. 7 F.3dat474rf...weconstruethefactsandreasonableinfetencesderived gfrom the complaintqin thelightmostfavorableto theplaintiff7).Plaindff'sclsimsthat to efendants...copied and used Copyrighted Photograph'?and thatffstinson w asthe dominantinfluencein Stinson Communications,LLC,anddetetmined and/ordirected the policiesthat1ed to theinfringem entscom plaintofherein''leadsto the clearinference that Stinson Communicationscaujed theinftingement.ECF No.16,!11,20.W hiletheamended com plqintprovidesrelatively littledetailto supportthe clnim sincluded therein,whatisthere issufikientsurmountthehutdleofa12q$(6)modonfordismissal.Stinson'smotionto dismissistherefote DE N IED . B. PlaintiffallegesthatH annabassparécipated in the com plained-ofinflingem ent, asserting,ffBeginning on oraboutN ovem ber23,2015,D efendantscopied and posted CopyrightedPhotographtoHannabass'scommercialwebsite.''ECF No.16,!11.Hannabass arguesthatCancian knew thatithad taken Tdno acdon wlnich would consdtute an infringem enton llispicttzre.''ECF N o.17-1,3.A sstated above,however,thetruth orfalsity ofthisisnotyetatissue.In deciding thism otion,the couzttakesallfactsalleged in the complaintastrue.SeeIbarra,120F.3dat474r<...weacceptthewell-pledallegationsofthe complaintastttze...'').Plaindffallegesthatbof.h Defendantscommitted thecopyright infzingem enton N ovem ber23,2015.A tpresent,thisissufficient.4 4Thecourtnotesthatinhismemorandllm inopposidontothismodon,PlaindffarguesthatHannabassissubjectto vicaziousliabilityinstead ofditectly liability fortllisinfe gem ent,due to itsbusinessreladonship with Se son Com m,lnicadons.ECF N o.23,9-10.A tpresent,the courtcazm otrale oh any contentoutside ofwhatispresentin the amended com plaint,butwillbe intezested itzçxploring whetherH nnnabassis(11 :ectly orvicadously liable,whether Sl inson Com m xm icadonsfllncdoned asan em ployee oran independentcontractorofH annaba.s,and whatissuesthis raisesintermsofSndingliabilityforcopyright12fzingementatsllmmaryjudgment. 8 H annabassalso arguesthatitcannotbe held liable fortheactionsofan entitynot namedasadefendantinthissuit(heterefetringtoSdnson Communications).ECF&o.171,3.Again,H annabasscannotsim ply plead factsthatcontradictwhatispled in thenm ended com plaintin orderto securedisnaissalofthissuit.Such argum entsarebestbroughtin a modonforsummaryjudgment.SeeMattressv.Talor,487F.supp.zd665,669O .S.C. 2007)(distinguishinga129$(6)moéonfrom amotion forsummaryjudgment)(ffrl'he defendantjreliesonlyon theallegatbnscontainedin theCompbintasabasisforltis moéon.Accordingly,thecourtagreeswithTaylorthatRule129$(6),andnotRule56, providestheappropriatestandard ofreview withrespectto llisModon to Dismiss.'). IV. Forthereasonsexpressed above,D efendants'm otionsto disnlissareD E N IED . An apptopriate O rderwillbeentezed. . ., . ''' ' Enieféd:-'/'?,,= //-> zz ?dw?' ' M ich . . F.Urbanski .. ' ' Um edStatesDisttictludge 9
]]>
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.
