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
lawsuit [2016/05/05 18:33] – Updates with May 4 Judge's order. Carlos Pedrazalawsuit [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 5: Line 5:
 <wrap lo>[[Gary Graham]] reprises his role as‭ [[Soval]] in the‭ '[[Vulcan Scene]],' from the legally entangled and otherwise unproduced‭ //‬Axanar‭// ‬feature film‭.</wrap> <wrap lo>[[Gary Graham]] reprises his role as‭ [[Soval]] in the‭ '[[Vulcan Scene]],' from the legally entangled and otherwise unproduced‭ //‬Axanar‭// ‬feature film‭.</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
-{{TOC}} 
 {{page>understanding}} {{page>understanding}}
  
 ====== Lawsuit ====== ====== Lawsuit ======
-On December 29‭, ‬2015‭, [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] filed a **lawsuit** in Federal District Court in California's Central District‭, ‬alleging [[copyright infringement]] by the company producing the feature film‭, //[[Axanar]]//, formerly //Star Trek: Axanar.//(([[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/crowdfunded-star-trek-movie-draws-851474|The Hollywood Reporter: Crowdfunded Star Trek Movie Draws Lawsuit..., 12/30/15]])) 
  
-{{ :paramount_logo.gif|}}+On December 29‭, ‬2015‭, [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] filed a **lawsuit** in Federal District Court in California's Central District‭, ‬alleging [[copyright infringement]] by the company producing the feature film‭, //[[Axanar]]//, formerly //Star Trek: Axanar.//(([[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/crowdfunded-star-trek-movie-draws-851474|The Hollywood Reporter: Crowdfunded Star Trek Movie Draws Lawsuit..., 12/30/15]]))
 ===== The Players ===== ===== The Players =====
 +{{TOC}}
 +{{ :paramount_logo.gif|}}
  
 ==== Plaintiffs ==== ==== Plaintiffs ====
Line 32: Line 32:
 Axanar Productions and Alec Peters are both represented pro bono by‭ [[Winston & Strawn]], ‬whose lead attorney is [[Erin Ranahan]]. Axanar Productions and Alec Peters are both represented pro bono by‭ [[Winston & Strawn]], ‬whose lead attorney is [[Erin Ranahan]].
  
-No [[other attorneys]] have yet been announced for any of the‭ "‬{!Doe:John or Jane Doe — otherwise unnamed people}}‭ ‬defendants‭," ‬who have yet to be named by the plaintiffs‭.‬ 
  
 ==== Judge ==== ==== Judge ====
Line 54: Line 53:
 The statement outlined the two parties' respective plans for {!discovery:pre-trial procedures to gather evidence}}, and requested settlement talks before a federal magistrate judge. The statement outlined the two parties' respective plans for {!discovery:pre-trial procedures to gather evidence}}, and requested settlement talks before a federal magistrate judge.
  
-The pending [[motion to dismiss]] the case that was filed by the defense is likely to be [[scheduling conference#what happens at the conference|included as a topic]] at the May 9 conference.+The [[motion to dismiss]] the case filed by the defense was denied by the judge following the May 9 conference. 
 ==== Axanar's Response ==== ==== Axanar's Response ====
 +
 The filing of the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]], on March 11, 2016, gave the defendants 20 days to respond. On March 28, attorneys Winston & Strawn filed a new [[motion to dismiss]] on behalf of the defendants. The filing of the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]], on March 11, 2016, gave the defendants 20 days to respond. On March 28, attorneys Winston & Strawn filed a new [[motion to dismiss]] on behalf of the defendants.
  
-The original legal complaint gave the defendants 20‭ ‬days to formally respond to the plaintiffs‭' ‬suit‭. ‬On January 22‭, ‬2016‭, ‬all parties agreed to a {{::axa-extension_of_time_to_file_an_answer.pdf|30-day extension}} for the defendants to file their‭ {!Answer:Defendants' plea outlining their defense}} to the complaint‭. ‬In the meantime‭, ‬Axanar agreed to not proceed with filming until after the filing‭.‬+The original legal complaint gave the defendants 20‭ ‬days to formally respond to the plaintiffs‭' ‬suit‭. ‬On January 22‭, ‬2016‭, ‬all parties agreed to a {{::axa-extension_of_time_to_file_an_answer.pdf|30-day extension}} for the defendants to file their‭ {!Answer:Defendants' plea outlining their defense}} to the complaint‭. ‬In the meantime‭, ‬Axanar agreed to not proceed with filming until after the February 22 filing‭.‬ 
 + 
 +=== Defendants' Answer & Counterclaim === 
 + 
 +Following two unsuccessful motions to dismiss the [[copyright infringement]] lawsuit against them, Axanar Productions and producer Alec Peters on May 23, 2016, filed a formal [[Answer]] to the legal complaint filed against them by CBS and Paramount Pictures. 
 + 
 +The Answer included a [[answer#counterclaim]] by the defendants, seeking monetary relief for harm caused to Axanar by the plaintiff's lawsuit. The plaintiffs [[plaintiffs_answer|replied to the counterclaim]] on June 15, 2016.
  
 === Motions to Dismiss === === Motions to Dismiss ===
  
-Instead of an Answer, [[Winston & Strawn]] has filed two [[motion to dismiss|Motions to Dismiss]] or strike parts of the legal complaint. The first was found moot by the judge after the plaintiffs filed an [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]]. The second, filed March 28, 2016, cites the plaintiffs':+Instead of an Answer, [[Winston & Strawn]] initially filed two [[motion to dismiss|Motions to Dismiss]] or strike parts of the legal complaint. The first was found moot by the judge after the plaintiffs filed an [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]]. The second, filed March 28, 2016, cites the plaintiffs':
  
   * Insufficient and implausible citations of instances of copyright infringement.   * Insufficient and implausible citations of instances of copyright infringement.
Line 70: Line 77:
 The plaintiffs [[dismissal_opposition|filed briefs]] opposing the second dismissal motion on April 11, arguing against all three points. The plaintiffs [[dismissal_opposition|filed briefs]] opposing the second dismissal motion on April 11, arguing against all three points.
  
-In a May 4 scheduling order, Judge Klausner announced he would hold no hearing on the dismissal motion, and that he would consider all the pleadings submitted before ruling. The May 9 [[scheduling conference]] may be where he rules on the motion.+{{section>dismissal denied#dismissal denied}}
  
-While the motion does not specifically outline Axanar's‭ [[legal defense]], it does hint at [[motion to dismiss#fair use defense|fair use]] as one means the defendants plan to pursue, among others previously mentioned by ‬Axanar attorney‭ ‬Erin Ranahan‭ did hint at two possible defense avenues ‬in an interview with the newspaper‭, [[Ranahan interview 1/27/16|Crain's Chicago Business]].+While the motion did not specifically outline Axanar's‭ [[legal defense]], it did hint at [[motion to dismiss#fair use defense|fair use]] as one means the defendants plan to pursue, among others previously mentioned by ‬Axanar attorney‭ ‬Erin Ranahan‭ did hint at two possible defense avenues ‬in an interview with the newspaper‭ [[Ranahan interview 1/27/16|Crain's Chicago Business]].
  
 More hints about the emerging defense strategy appeared in the [[joint statement]] submitted May 2 by both sides to the judge. More hints about the emerging defense strategy appeared in the [[joint statement]] submitted May 2 by both sides to the judge.
Line 78: Line 85:
 == Amended Legal Complaint == == Amended Legal Complaint ==
  
-Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http://1701news.com/node/1041/cbsparamount-ask-short-delay-axanar-lawsuit.html|1701News: CBS/Paramount Ask For Short Delay In 'Axanar' Lawsuit]], 2/24/16.)) on the case, [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge Klausner]] denied the delay,(([[http://www.scribd.com/doc/301310328/Order-Denied-stipulation-to-continue|Judge's 2/26/16 order denying continuance, scribd.com]], retrieved 2/29/16)). +Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http://1701news.com/node/1041/cbsparamount-ask-short-delay-axanar-lawsuit.html|1701News: CBS/Paramount Ask For Short Delay In 'Axanar' Lawsuit]], 2/24/16.)) on the case, [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge Klausner]] denied the delay.(([[http://www.scribd.com/doc/301310328/Order-Denied-stipulation-to-continue|Judge's 2/26/16 order denying continuance, scribd.com]], retrieved 2/29/16.)) 
  
 Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{:031123065442-noticeofplaintiffsnonoppositiontomotiontodismiss.pdf|notice to the court}} filed March 7, 2016, plaintiffs had failed to respond to the dismissal motion on the due date, adding that their attorneys had informed them of its intent to file an amended legal complaint. With the filing of the amended complaint, the {{:moot-mtd.jpg?linkonly|judge ruled}} the original dismissal motion moot, sending the case to the next scheduled [[scheduling_conference|pre-trial meeting]]. Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{:031123065442-noticeofplaintiffsnonoppositiontomotiontodismiss.pdf|notice to the court}} filed March 7, 2016, plaintiffs had failed to respond to the dismissal motion on the due date, adding that their attorneys had informed them of its intent to file an amended legal complaint. With the filing of the amended complaint, the {{:moot-mtd.jpg?linkonly|judge ruled}} the original dismissal motion moot, sending the case to the next scheduled [[scheduling_conference|pre-trial meeting]].
Line 106: Line 113:
 Following the March 11 filing of the plaintiff's amended legal complaint, [[Judge R. Gary Klausner|Judge Klausner]] ruled the original motion to dismiss was [[motion to dismiss|moot]], and canceled the March 21 hearing.  Following the March 11 filing of the plaintiff's amended legal complaint, [[Judge R. Gary Klausner|Judge Klausner]] ruled the original motion to dismiss was [[motion to dismiss|moot]], and canceled the March 21 hearing. 
  
-That's where the case stood until March 28's new dismissal motion, which asks for a hearing date considering the motion on May 9, the same day as the [[scheduling conference]].+That's where the case stood until March 28's new dismissal motion, which asked for a hearing date considering the motion on May 9, the same day as the [[scheduling conference]].
  
 ---- ----
-**Keywords** +**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit players plaintiffs defendants}}
-{{tag>lawsuit players plaintiffs defendants}}+