Akilah Hughes v. Carl Benjamin (2017)

[DragoonSierra]

Punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs along with actual damages, so it would require a countersuit of some sort. What can be awarded, though, are attorney fees and punitive sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

In either event, prevailing defendants in a copyright action as bogus as this are likely to succeed in a motion for fees.



Costs are usually automatic. They are also a pittance. For fees (under Fogerty v. Fantasy), you generally have to show the lawsuit was "frivolous" or "objectively unreasonable," which shouldn't be as difficult as it usually is because in this case the defendant boasted on social media about the improper purposes, and in court, was unable to articulate any reasonable basis for the suit. That and the fact that the suit involved blindingly obvious fair use isn't good for the defendant.

Also lol @ this.

View attachment 1162403

Playtime for Twitter tards is over.

So I know that people/companies who dont do a fair use analysis have been bitch slapped in court for not doing one. I know that only usually happens when someone sues for being DMCAed and this case is the other way around but could that come into play?

The court also told the plaintiff the lawsuit was clearly barred by fair use and gave another opportunity to back out of the frivolous litigation, which the plaintiff was too dumb to take. She was on notice the suit was frivolous and went ahead and pursued it anyway.

So yes, everyone involved did file a frivolous lawsuit and then pursued it in bad faith, in violation of Rule 11.

Wait what? The court gave her a chance to back out before the ruling?

 

[AnOminous]

So I know that people/companies who dont do a fair use analysis have been bitch slapped in court for not doing one. I know that only usually happens when someone sues for being DMCAed and this case is the other way around but could that come into play?

That's exactly what did happen.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

Lesson for today: Making videos in support of Shillary will make you pay dearly, obviously.

 

[Trig.Point]

Lesson for today: Making videos in support of Shillary will make you pay dearly, obviously.

Here's a question, who actually made the video? If you watch Hughes other videos the actual production values are all over the place, ranging from a badly lit blog, to a multi camera production with several scripted actors.

Some of the videos are collabs, in some she gave shout outs for help in editing (I imagine she's pretty good at persuading someone to work for exposure). That Hilary video however that looked expensive.

 

[soy_king]

It's a moot point since they're not asking for sanctions in excess of fees, but Rule 11 sanctions would be entirely appropriate and Soygon even told the plaintiff up front the lawsuit was frivolous and he would be pursuing fees. The court also told the plaintiff the lawsuit was clearly barred by fair use and gave another opportunity to back out of the frivolous litigation, which the plaintiff was too dumb to take. She was on notice the suit was frivolous and went ahead and pursued it anyway.

So yes, everyone involved did file a frivolous lawsuit and then pursued it in bad faith, in violation of Rule 11.

I'm not denying he's not filing for Rule 11 sanctions and for clearly violating Rule 512(f). What I am saying is that since this is a copyright infringement case under the DMCA, an award of punitive damages would be entirely inappropriate.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not denying he's not filing for Rule 11 sanctions and for clearly violating Rule 512(f). What I am saying is that since this is a copyright infringement case under the DMCA, an award of punitive damages would be entirely inappropriate.

And nobody's disagreed with that. Punitive damages are only available to a prevailing plaintiff in addition to actual damages, and Benjamin isn't suing for anything. So what are you even arguing about?

Also he isn't asking for Rule 11 sanctions either. Just costs (FRCP 54) and fees (Title 17). And he isn't asking for 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) fees either, because he's not suing over the DMCA, but over the subsequent lawsuit. That's just straight copyright lawsuit fee shifting for a prevailing defendant when the plaintiff brought an objectively unreasonable claim, pursuant to the Fogerty v. Fantasy line of cases.

 

[soy_king]

And nobody's disagreed with that. Punitive damages are only available to a prevailing plaintiff in addition to actual damages, and Benjamin isn't suing for anything. So what are you even arguing about?

Also he isn't asking for Rule 11 sanctions either. Just costs (FRCP 54) and fees (Title 17). And he isn't asking for 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) fees either, because he's not suing over the DMCA, but over the subsequent lawsuit. That's just straight copyright lawsuit fee shifting for a prevailing defendant when the plaintiff brought an objectively unreasonable claim, pursuant to the Fogerty v. Fantasy line of cases.

My only issue is that he couldn't be awarded punitive damages even if he filed a countersuit under Rule 11, as the basis of his claim doesn't permit it. You're right, it's definitely moot, but I'm unsure why you stated he could seek punitive damages to start with. If you didn't then my mistake.

Tbh, I'm surprised he's not filing a 512(f) suit, since Akilah's DMCA takedown is a textbook case of that.

 

[AnOminous]

My only issue is that he couldn't be awarded punitive damages even if he filed a countersuit under Rule 11, as the basis of his claim doesn't permit it. You're right, it's definitely moot, but I'm unsure why you stated he could seek punitive damages to start with. If you didn't then my mistake.

Tbh, I'm surprised he's not filing a 512(f) suit, since Akilah's DMCA takedown is a textbook case of that.

Rule 11 isn't a countersuit. It's civil sanctions in any lawsuit. To get punitive damages, again, you would need to be the plaintiff and be awarded actual damages, as the plaintiff. They don't exist without compensatory damages. Sanctions under Rule 11 that exceed the fee award, though, are inherently punitive, as they are intended to punish, just as punitive damages in a civil suit are intended to punish.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Rule 11 isn't a countersuit. It's civil sanctions in any lawsuit. To get punitive damages, again, you would need to be the plaintiff and be awarded actual damages, as the plaintiff. They don't exist without compensatory damages. Sanctions under Rule 11 that exceed the fee award, though, are inherently punitive, as they are intended to punish, just as punitive damages in a civil suit are intended to punish.

So Im confused. Is it likely hes just going to get his fees and nothing else? No punishment for filing a frivolous lawsuit?

 

[AnOminous]

So Im confused. Is it likely hes just going to get his fees and nothing else? No punishment for filing a frivolous lawsuit?

That is punishment. The usual rule is both parties pay their own fees.

 

[soy_king]

Rule 11 isn't a countersuit. It's civil sanctions in any lawsuit. To get punitive damages, again, you would need to be the plaintiff and be awarded actual damages, as the plaintiff. They don't exist without compensatory damages. Sanctions under Rule 11 that exceed the fee award, though, are inherently punitive, as they are intended to punish, just as punitive damages in a civil suit are intended to punish.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on most of that. However, statutory damages in copyright fill the role of punitive damages in tort law or contract law, so if it was really egregious false copyright claims Carl would only be eligible to receive statutory, not punitive damages. To my knowledge, his sanctions motions aren't based on anything outside of US copyright law. Are any of his civil sanctions that he's filing not based in copyright law?

 

[TowinKarz]

So I know that people/companies who dont do a fair use analysis have been bitch slapped in court for not doing one. I know that only usually happens when someone sues for being DMCAed and this case is the other way around but could that come into play?


Wait what? The court gave her a chance to back out before the ruling?

She also opeted to proceede with different counsel when the original ones she hired realized that she had no case AND that Sargon's lawyers knew their shit. When they sent their "how about we settle?" demand, they sent back "We don't settle with frivolous cases that clearly are fair use, continue and we not only win but hit you for costs"

At that point, lawyer #1 bailed and she just hired a second one.

If that one never checked their facts, shame on them

If she lied to them about what was really happening, shame on her

Either way, SJWs once again learn the hard way that courts don't give a damn about feelings and those who yell the LOUDEST don't prevail if the facts are not on their side.

He's going to get his money, only question is, how much? Because the defendant was not only an exploitative cry-baby who brought a garbage suit, but BRAGGED about it.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Wait what? The court gave her a chance to back out before the ruling?

Yep. The judge was very skeptical and basically told her she should try and settle this out. She didnt and now she is fucked.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Judge should hit her with punitive damages but make those punitive damages lower than what it would cost to appeal.

 

[I can't imagine]

Judge should hit her with punitive damages but make those punitive damages lower than what it would cost to appeal.

As was already mentioned, Carl isn't asking for sanctions, so odds are pretty low he'd be granted them. All things considered, his request is fairly modest, so I wouldn't be shocked if it was granted in full. $33k isn't anything to sneeze at, so I'd suspect it'll function as some level of deterrent.

As to an appeal...I'm not sure she has anything she could use as a cause to appeal the decision. I mean, obviously she can try, but I don't really see it going anywhere.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

Three new documents and accompanying exhibits. Part of Akilah's argument for why she shouldn't have to pay Sargon's legal fees is because he had a GoFundMe.

Her lawyer also complains that he didn't make a counteroffer to her demand for $46,000, which she made after the judge told her she had no case. He just filed his motion to dismiss and won.

(This is from Sargon's lawyer)

Akliah had the audacity to ask for $46,000 after the judge said the video was likely to be fair use.

 

[AnOminous]

Her lawyer also complains that he didn't make a counteroffer to her demand for $46,000, which she made after the judge told her she had no case. He just filed his motion to dismiss and won.

His counteroffer was always on the table.

It was "fuck off with your frivolous lawsuit and go away or else."

 

[Cin Red]

Akilah said the people who donated to Sargon's GoFundMe were sweaty neckbeards less than a month ago and now she wants them to pay her tab?

Akilah Hughes on Twitter: "@SamVentura9 In my bank account and I didn…

archived 7 Feb 2020 09:45:17 UTC

archive.ph

Plaintiff has faced widespread public criticism as a result of losing this lawsuit. (Hughes Decl. Ex. B). Thus, an award of attorney’s fees will only be additional, and unjust, punishment for a good faith attempt to enforce her rights.

She submitted a screen shot of comments about her and that's supposed to get her off the hook. Does this look like someone who argued in good faith?

Akilah Hughes on Twitter: "@SatanzOutlaw I'm literally in a room with…

archived 7 Feb 2020 09:45:41 UTC

archive.ph

 

[Facts Over Feels]

Akilah sooo overplayed her hand. It's quite obvious she wanted at least some kind of settlement from Sargon so she could claim victory but she got way too greedy and ended up getting reamed by the long arm of the law.

 

[I can't imagine]

Three new documents and accompanying exhibits. Part of Akilah's argument for why she shouldn't have to pay Sargon's legal fees is because he had a GoFundMe.
View attachment 1173672

I mean, I realize her attorney has to come up with some sort of defense, but they can't possibly think "he doesn't need the money" is actually an argument the court will buy into. Making the plaintiff pay attorney's fees isn't just to help the defendant, it's to teach the plaintiff a lesson about filing dumb lawsuits.