Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
dismissal_opposition [2016/04/14 23:39] – adds judicial notice section Carlos Pedrazadismissal_opposition [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 11: Line 11:
   * One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]].   * One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]].
   * A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-defense-request-judicial-notice/|request for judicial notice]] filed by Winston's lead attorney, [[Erin Ranahan]], supporting the dismissal motion.   * A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-defense-request-judicial-notice/|request for judicial notice]] filed by Winston's lead attorney, [[Erin Ranahan]], supporting the dismissal motion.
 +
 +{{section>dismissal denied#dismissal denied}}
  
 ===== Plausible Copyright Infringement ===== ===== Plausible Copyright Infringement =====
Line 98: Line 100:
 The dismissal motion asserted the legal complaint made allegations merely "on information and belief," too low a standard for the the copyright claims in the suit. The plaintiffs countered, saying those facts were all under the defendants' control: The dismissal motion asserted the legal complaint made allegations merely "on information and belief," too low a standard for the the copyright claims in the suit. The plaintiffs countered, saying those facts were all under the defendants' control:
  
->  [The case law] does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged “upon information and belief,” particularly when those facts are within the possession and control of the defendant..((Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, p. 16 lines 23-25; 4/11/16.))+>  [The case law] does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged “upon information and belief,” particularly when those facts are within the possession and control of the defendant.((Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, p. 16 lines 23-25; 4/11/16.))
  
 Further, the brief states, many of those facts came from the defendants themselves: Further, the brief states, many of those facts came from the defendants themselves:
Line 130: Line 132:
 ===== Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice ===== ===== Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice =====
  
-The request for judicial notice by the defense was meant to convince the judge to admit certain facts (most are references to generic items, characters, shapes, names, etc., claimed as copyright-free elements the defendants are entitled to use without violating Star Trek copyrights). The plaintiffs assert these facts are sufficiently disputed by their arguments for copyright protection of Star Trek elements as a whole as to render the request irrelevant.((Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, p. 7; 4/11/16.))+The request for judicial notice by the defense was meant to convince the judge to admit certain facts (most are references to generic items, characters, shapes, names, etc., claimed as copyright-free elements the defendants are entitled to use without violating Star Trek copyrights). The plaintiffs assert these facts are sufficiently disputed by their arguments for copyright protection of Star Trek elements as a whole as to render the request irrelevant.((Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, p. 7; 4/11/16.)) {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
  
  
 ---- ----
 **Keywords** {{tag>plaintiffs lawsuit}} **Keywords** {{tag>plaintiffs lawsuit}}