Home > Lawsuits > IPTV and Streaming >
After filing a wave of lawsuits against entities that allegedly broadcast the Jake Paul vs Ben Askren fight without permission, Triller recorded another ruling in a US court. A judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against YouTuber 'ItsLilBrandon' after it Triller did not comply with court orders.
Since the fight between Jake Paul and Ben Askren was illegally streamed online, Triller has filed copyright infringement lawsuits against the alleged culprits.
The campaign started with a $ 100 million complaint against multiple โbusiness entities,โ but a judge dismissed all but one of the parties to the action, warning that by joining all of them as cooperating parties, the unlawful conduct of one defendant could be wrongly attributed to another independent defendant.
In response, Triller began filing separate actions against each entity. One of those suits was targeting YouTuber 'ItsLilBrandon', later identified as Brandon T. Williams.
Accusations against Williams
Triller's complaint alleged that Williams is the operator of the YouTube channel 'ItsLilBrandon', which seemed like a reasonable conclusion, adding that Williams publicly showed the Jake Paul fight and asked fans to "help out" by donating to the processing service of mobile payments Cash App.
However, without any supporting evidence, the company also claimed that Williams owns and operates multiple torrent and streaming websites and accused Williams of using the 'ItsLilBrandon' brand as a shell to avoid liability to Triller.
Following these somewhat grandiose allegations, Triller charged Williams with copyright infringement, indirect copyright infringement, Federal Communications Law violations, conversion and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Williams was served, Triller seeks default sentence
The case file reveals that the 19-year-old Williams received the summons and complaint on the morning of June 7. Triller's representative was unable to locate the defendant at the expected address, but Williams later accepted service at an address in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. .
On July 1, Triller requested entry of a clerk's breach against Williams, stating that Williams had not responded or otherwise responded to the complaint within 21 days of notification. A day later, the clerk entered into default against Brandon Williams and ItsLilBrandon, and ordered Triller to file a motion for default judgment no later than July 20, 2021.
United States District Judge Fernando M. Olguin informed Triller on July 6 that his motion should include detailed information, such as damages and injunctions requested, and any claims for attorneys' fees. One of the basic requirements was that any claim for damages must be "supported by detailed, clear and comprehensive calculations" that cite the "underlying admissible evidence, such as contracts, spreadsheets and statements."
The judge cautioned that failure to file a motion for default that contains the information detailed in his order could result in the motion being denied. You might even see the case against the defendant dismissed for failing to prosecute and / or not complying with a court order.
Triller does not comply with the judge's instructions
In the July 26 minutes, Judge Olguin notes that Triller was ordered to serve a motion for default judgment no later than July 20 and warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action against Brandon. Williams and ItsLilBrandon.
Triller did not comply with that order.
Noting that dismissal is a severe penalty and an extreme remedy, the judge adds that relevant factors must be weighed prior to dismissal, including the public's interest in prompt resolution of the dispute, the need for the court to manage its record, and risk. detriment to defendants and respondents.
โThe failure of the plaintiff to file the motion for default in absentia hinders the court's ability to move this case to disposition and indicates that the plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action,โ Judge Olguin writes.
โTherefore, having considered the Argue factors, the court is convinced that the present action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and lack of prosecution โ.
The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means that a new complaint can be filed at a later date. However, in light of the judge's demands that a detailed claim for damages is required (no evidence has been presented to support such a claim in court), the question remains as to whether Triller is really interested in further go ahead with this matter.
