`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`AF HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`RAJESH PATEL,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby files
`
`this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff files this action for copyright infringement under the United States
`
`Copyright Act and related civil conspiracy, contributory infringement and negligence claims
`
`under the common law to combat the willful and intentional infringement of its creative works.
`
`Defendant Rajesh Patel (“Defendant”) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed
`
`Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video by acting in concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing
`
`protocol and, upon information and belief, continues to do the same. In using BitTorrent,
`
`Defendant’s infringement actions furthered the efforts of numerous others in infringing on
`
`Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. The result: exponential viral infringement. Plaintiff seeks a
`
`permanent injunction, statutory or actual damages, award of costs and attorney’s fees, and other
`
`relief to curb this behavior.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. Plaintiff is a holder of rights to various
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 15
`
`copyrighted works, and is the exclusive holder of the relevant rights with respect to the
`
`copyrighted creative work at issue in this Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`The copyrighted work at issue in this complaint is one of Plaintiff’s adult
`
`entertainment videos, “ Popular Demand” (the “Video”).
`
`4.
`
`Defendant is an individual who, on information and belief, is over the age of 18,
`
`resides in this District, and was the account holder of Internet Protocol (“IP”) address
`
`75.89.36.80 at the time of the alleged infringing activity. An IP address is a number assigned to
`
`devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. In the course of monitoring
`
`Internet-based infringement of its copyrighted content, Plaintiff’s agents observed unlawful
`
`reproduction and distribution occurring over IP address 75.89.36.80 via the BitTorrent file
`
`transfer protocol.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim
`
`under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., (the Copyright Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (actions arising under the
`
`laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (actions arising under an Act of Congress
`
`relating to copyrights). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy,
`
`contributory infringement and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so
`
`related to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, which is within this Court’s original
`
`jurisdiction, that the claims form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of the
`
`United States Constitution.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction because, upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant either resides in or committed copyright infringement in the State of Georgia.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendant resides in this District, may be found in this District,
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 15
`
`or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this
`
`District.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (“protocol”) used for distributing data
`
`via the Internet.
`
`9.
`
`Traditional file transfer protocols involve a central server, which distributes data
`
`directly to individual users. This method is prone to collapse when large numbers of users
`
`request data from the central server, in which case the server can become overburdened and the
`
`rate of data transmission can slow considerably or cease altogether. In addition, the reliability of
`
`access to the data stored on a server is largely dependent on the server’s ability to continue
`
`functioning for prolonged periods of time under high resource demands.
`
`10.
`
`Standard P2P protocols involve a one-to-one transfer of whole files between a
`
`single uploader and single downloader. Although standard P2P protocols solve some of the
`
`issues associated with traditional file transfer protocols, these protocols still suffer from such
`
`issues as scalability. For example, when a popular file is released (e.g. an illegal copy of the
`
`latest blockbuster movie) the initial source of the file performs a one-to-one whole file transfer to
`
`a third party, who then performs similar transfers. The one-to-one whole file transfer method can
`
`significantly delay the spread of a file across the world because the initial spread is so limited.
`
`11.
`
`In contrast, the BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data.
`
`Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent
`
`protocol allows individual users to distribute data among themselves. Further, the BitTorrent
`
`protocol involves breaking a single large file into many small pieces, which can be transferred
`
`much more quickly than a single large file and in turn redistributed much more quickly than a
`
`single large file. Moreover, each peer can download missing pieces of the file from multiple
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 4 of 15
`
`sources—often simultaneously—which causes transfers to be fast and reliable. After
`
`downloading a piece, a peer automatically becomes a source for the piece. This distribution
`
`method contrasts sharply with a one-to-one whole file transfer method.
`
`12.
`
`In BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file
`
`are called peers. The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a particular file is
`
`called a swarm. A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm is called a tracker. A computer
`
`program that implements the BitTorrent protocol is called a BitTorrent client. Each swarm is
`
`unique to a particular file.
`
`13.
`
`The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small “torrent”
`
`file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the
`
`computer that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent file into a
`
`BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker listed in the torrent file.
`
`Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the BitTorrent client connects to those peers
`
`to begin downloading data from and distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the
`
`download is complete, the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to other peers in the
`
`swarm until the user manually disconnects from the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise
`
`does the same.
`
`14.
`
`The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low.
`
`Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast
`
`identifying information (i.e. an IP address) before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the actual
`
`names of peers in a swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute
`
`under the cover of their IP addresses.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 5 of 15
`
`15.
`
`The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. The
`
`size of swarms for popular files can reach into the tens of thousands of unique peers. A swarm
`
`will commonly have peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several
`
`countries around the world. And every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to
`
`dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other peers.
`
`16.
`
`The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully
`
`copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United
`
`States. A broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other
`
`forms of media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.
`
`17.
`
`Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been stymied
`
`by BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from
`
`unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-
`
`piracy efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely
`
`robust and efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from
`
`anti-piracy measures. This lawsuit is Plaintiff’s only practical means of combating BitTorrent-
`
`based infringement of the Video.
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff is the exclusive rights holder with respect to BitTorrent-based
`
`reproduction and distribution of the Video.
`
`19.
`
`The Video is currently registered in the United States Copyright Office
`
`(Copyright No. PA0001754383). (See Exhibit A to Complaint.) On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff
`
`received the rights to this Video pursuant to an assignment agreement, a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. (See Exhibit B to Complaint.)
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 6 of 15
`
`20.
`
` The torrent file used to access the copyrighted material was named in a manner
`
`that would have provided an ordinary individual with notice that the Video was protected by the
`
`copyright laws of the United States.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software to perform
`
`exhaustive real time monitoring of the BitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the
`
`Video. This software is effective in capturing data about the activity of peers in a swarm and
`
`their infringing conduct.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant, using IP address 75.89.36.80, without Plaintiff’s authorization or
`
`license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff’s Video, purposefully
`
`loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to
`
`Plaintiff’s Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous third parties.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff’s investigators detected Defendant’s illegal download on
`
`December 4, 2011 at 21:39:23 UTC. However, this is a simply a snapshot observation of when
`
`the IP address was observed in the BitTorrent swarm; the conduct itself took place before and
`
`after this date and time.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant was part of a group of BitTorrent users or peers in a single swarm—a
`
`process generally described above—whose computers were collectively interconnected for the
`
`sharing of a particular unique file. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a
`
`unique file “hash”—i.e. a unique file identifier generated by an algorithm (hereinafter “Hash
`
`Tag.”)—and common to all of the participants in the swarm.
`
`COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – REPRODUCTION
`(17 U.S.C. § 106(1))
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
`
`25.
`
`the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 7 of 15
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff is the copyright owner of the Video.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant, without authorization, unlawfully obtained a copy of the Video.
`
`Normally, Plaintiff offers the Video for purchase. Defendant, however, did not
`
`purchase the Video and/or obtain the Video legally.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant used IP address 75.89.36.80 to access the Video on the Internet, and
`
`download the unique file containing the Video onto a hard drive through the unique swarm
`
`associated with the unique Hash Tag using the BitTorrent protocol.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s actions constituted copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.
`
`Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:
`
`intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s conduct infringed upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction of
`
`the Video that are protected under the Copyright Act.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s conduct, including, but not limited to,
`
`economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no
`
`adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming
`
`from Defendant’s conduct.
`
`35.
`
`As Defendant’s infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled
`
`to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at its
`
`own election, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505), injunctive relief
`
`(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.
`
`///
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 8 of 15
`
`COUNT II – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – DISTRIBUTION
`(17 U.S.C. § 106(3))
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
`
`36.
`
`the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff holds the exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to distribute the
`
`Video.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has used, and continues to use, the BitTorrent file transfer protocol to
`
`unlawfully distribute the Video to other individuals over the Internet by publishing the Video to
`
`hundreds of thousands of BitTorrent users from a computer owned or controlled by Defendant,
`
`which, in essence, served as a distribution server for the Video. In doing so, Defendant violated
`
`Plaintiff’s exclusive rights to distribute the Video.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant was not given any permission to conduct such reproduction, and
`
`Plaintiff never consented to such.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights and
`
`exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:
`
`intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s conduct, including but not limited to
`
`economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no
`
`adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming
`
`from the Defendant’s conduct.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 9 of 15
`
`44.
`
`As Defendant’s infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled
`
`to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at its
`
`own election, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505), injunctive relief
`
`(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.
`
`COUNT III – CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
`
`45.
`
`the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`46. When users in this unique swarm all possess the same infringing work with the
`
`same exact hash value, it is because each infringer possesses an exact digital copy, containing the
`
`exact bits and pieces unique to that specific file of Plaintiff’s original copyrighted work. They
`
`only way this happens in a BitTorrent swarm is through the sharing of these bits and pieces of
`
`each same unique file, with the same unique hash value, between the users in the swarm. In
`
`essence, although hundreds of users may be uploading the copyrighted work, a single user will
`
`receive only the exact parts of a singular upload through that exact swarm, not a compilation of
`
`available pieces from various uploads.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant published the Hash Tag to the BitTorrent network.
`
`Defendant downloaded, uploaded and distributed the Video to other BitTorrent
`
`users through use of the hash-specified protocol in the unique swarm.
`
`49.
`
`As each of the thousands of people who illegally downloaded the movie accessed
`
`this illegal publication, they derived portions of their illegal replication of the file from multiple
`
`persons, including, but not limited to, Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 10 of 15
`
`50.
`
`Defendant knew of the infringement, was conscious of his own infringement, and
`
`Defendant was fully conscious that his actions resulted in multiple other persons derivatively
`
`downloading the file containing Plaintiff’s Video.
`
`51.
`
`The infringement by the other BitTorrent users could not have occurred without
`
`Defendant’s participation in uploading Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. As such, Defendant’s
`
`participation in the infringing activities of others is substantial and contributed, for profit, to the
`
`infringing activity of thousands of other peers over the Internet across the world.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant profited from this contributory infringement by way of being granted
`
`access to a greater library of other infringing works, some of which belonged to Plaintiff and
`
`some of which belonged to other copyright owners.
`
`COUNT IV – CIVIL CONSPIRACY
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
`
`the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`54.
`
`In using the peer-to-peer BitTorrent file distribution method, Defendant engaged
`
`in a concerted action with other unnamed individuals to reproduce and distribute Plaintiff’s
`
`Video by exchanging pieces of the Video file in the torrent swarm.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant and his co-conspirators downloaded a torrent file, opened it using a
`
`BitTorrent client, and then entered a torrent swarm comprised of other individuals distributing
`
`and reproducing Plaintiff’s Video. In participating in said conspiratorial network, Defendant
`
`agreed with others to engage in a concerted tortious action in the network to reproduce and
`
`distribute Plaintiff’s Video.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 11 of 15
`
`56.
`
`Participants in the torrent swarm have conspired to provide other individuals with
`
`pieces of the Video in exchange for receiving other pieces of the same Video to eventually obtain
`
`a complete copy of the file.
`
`57.
`
`In furtherance of this civil conspiracy, Defendant committed overt tortious and
`
`unlawful acts by using BitTorrent software to download the Video from and distribute it to
`
`others, and were willful participants in this joint activity.
`
`58.
`
`As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged, as is more
`
`fully alleged above.
`
`COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
`
`the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`60.
`
`In the alternative, Defendant was negligent and/or reckless in allowing a third-
`
`party to commit the allegations of infringement, contributory infringement, and civil conspiracy
`
`described above through his Internet connection.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant accessed, or controlled access to, the Internet connection used in
`
`performing the unauthorized copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video, proximately causing
`
`financial harm to Plaintiff.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that
`
`duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.
`
`63.
`
`Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts
`
`preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendant’s failure to secure his
`
`Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary
`
`care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 12 of 15
`
`64.
`
`In the alternative, Defendant secured his connection, but knowingly permitted an
`
`unknown third party to use his Internet connection to infringe on Plaintiff’s Video. Defendant
`
`knew, or should have known, that this unidentified individual used Defendant’s Internet
`
`connection for the aforementioned illegal activities. Defendant declined to monitor the
`
`unidentified third-party infringer’s use of his computer Internet connection, demonstrating
`
`further negligence.
`
`65.
`
`In the alternative, Defendant knew of, and allowed for, the unidentified third party
`
`infringer’s use of his Internet connection for illegal purposes and thus was complicit in the
`
`unidentified third party’s actions.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s failure to secure his Internet access
`
`account directly allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent
`
`protocol through Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights
`
`in the copyrighted work.
`
`67.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant knew, or should have known of, the
`
`unidentified third party’s infringing actions, and, despite this, Defendant directly, or indirectly,
`
`allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent protocol through
`
`Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the
`
`copyrighted Video.
`
`68.
`
`By virtue of his unsecured access, Defendant negligently allowed the use of his
`
`Internet access account to perform the above-described copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted Video.
`
`69.
`
`Had Defendant taken reasonable care in securing access to this Internet
`
`connection, or monitoring the unidentified third-party individual’s use of his Internet connection,
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 13 of 15
`
`such infringements as those described above would not have occurred by the use of Defendant’s
`
`Internet access account.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s negligent actions allowed numerous others to unlawfully copy and
`
`share Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and
`
`unlawfully interfering with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Video.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judgment and relief as follows:
`
`1)
`
`Judgment against Defendant that he has: a) willfully infringed Plaintiff’s rights in
`
`federally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501; and b) otherwise injured the
`
`business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendant’s acts and conduct set forth in this
`
`Complaint;
`
`2)
`
`Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant for actual damages or
`
`statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount to be
`
`ascertained at trial;
`
`3)
`
`Order of impoundment under 17 U.S.C. §§ 503 & 509(a) impounding all
`
`infringing copies of Plaintiff’s audiovisual works, photographs or other materials, which are in
`
`Defendant’s possession or under his control;
`
`4)
`
`As to Count III, that the Court order the Defendant jointly and severally liable to
`
`Plaintiff in the full amount of the Judgment along with the damages associated with the
`
`infringing activities of his co-conspirators;
`
`5)
`
`As to Count IV, an order that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount
`
`of Judgment on the basis of a common law claim for contributory infringement of copyright; for
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 14 of 15
`
`an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant in an amount
`
`to be determined at trial;
`
`6)
`
`On Count IV, in the alternative, an order that Defendant is jointly and severally
`
`liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount of Judgment on the basis of Defendant’s negligence in
`
`allowing an unidentified third party access his Internet account and, through it, violate Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted works; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against
`
`Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;
`
`7)
`
`Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendant awarding the Plaintiff
`
`attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of expert witnesses), and other costs
`
`of this action; and
`
`8)
`
`Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, awarding Plaintiff
`
`declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as may be just and warranted under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`AF Holdings, LLC,
`
`DATED: November 2, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jacques Nazaire
`
`Jacques Nazaire, Esq. (Bar No. 142388)
`Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.
`125 Town Park Drive, Suite 300
`Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
`Telephone: (415) 325-5900
`Email: blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 15 of 15
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by FRCP 38(a).
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jacques Nazaire
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jacques Nazaire, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff