Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - Copyright suit against Russ Whitney and his book publisher 3

Guest

Copyright suit against Russ Whitney and his book publisher by Pete and Tony Youngs 3

COUNT EIGHT COMPLAINT FOR EXPENSES OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 13-
6-11

66.

By engaging in the aforementioned intentional misconduct as referenced above, including but not limited to fraud, malicious interference with contractual relations, and malicious interference with business relations, Defendants have caused Plaintiffs unnecessary trouble and expense and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants all expenses of litigation, including attorney fees of a reasonable value.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment that:
A. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those persons in active concert or participation with each or any of them, be enjoined preliminarily during the pendency of this action and permanently thereafter, from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs' copyrights in any manner or from utilizing, reproducing, performing causing, contributing to, or participating in the unauthorized reproduction, use or performance by sale or otherwise of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works;
B. Defendants their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those persons in active concert or participation with each or any of them, be enjoined during the pendency of this action from the sale, transfer, distribution, however denominated, of all infringing works which are in their possession or control, as are herein alleged to infringe Plaintiffs' copyrights, and that all such infringing works in possession or under the control of Defendants be delivered to the control of the Court for impounding during the pendency of this action or otherwise impounded as directed by this Court;
C. Whitney Defendants be required to account for and pay over to Plaintiffs all the profits which they have derived from the willful infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights in the educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure; or to pay such damages to Plaintiffs as this Court shall find just and proper, multiplied pursuant to the provisions of the copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. § 504, but not less than $150,000 for each separate intentional infringement, for a total of $1,650,000;
D. The Whitney Defendants pay to Plaintiffs damages of not less than $75,000 in compensation for Whitney's fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiffs causing Plaintiffs' reliance on those representations and thereby causing Plaintiffs' monetary damage;
E. The Whitney Defendants pay to Plaintiffs damages of not less than $75,000 in compensation for Whitney's negligent misrepresentations to Plaintiffs causing Plaintiffs' reliance on those representations and thereby causing Plaintiffs' monetary damage;
F. Defendant Keller pay to Plaintiffs damages of not less than $75,000 in compensation for his malicious interference with the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Whitney;
G. Defendant Keller pay to Plaintiffs damages of not less than $75,000 in compensation for his malicious interference with the business relationship between Plaintiffs and Whitney;
H. Defendants pay to Plaintiffs such punitive damages in excess of $250,000 as are reasonable pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, as found by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury;
I. The Whitney Defendants Pay to Plaintiffs Damages of not less than $75,000 in compensation for Whitney's breach of the contractual duties of implied good faith, fair dealing and loyalty;
J. Defendants pay to Plaintiffs the costs and reasonable litigation expenses incurred herein, including reasonable attorney's fees, as provided by the copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. § 505 and by Georgia Law, O.C.G.A. § 13-6- 11;
K. Atrial by jury; and
L. For such other and further relief as is warranted and justitied by the pleadings and evidence.
END OF DOCUMENT

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia.
Pete YOUNGS and Tony Youngs, Plaintiffs,
v.
WHITNEY EDUCATION GROUP, INC., Whitney Leadership Group, Inc., Whitney
Information Network, Inc., Russ Whitney, and David Keller, Defendants.
Civil Action File No. 1:03-CV-1697-TWT.
September 4, 2003.

Answer, Defendses, and Counterclaim of Defendants Whitney Education Group,
Inc., Whitney Leadership Group, Inc., Whitney Information Network, Inc., Russ
Whitney, and David Keller

Defendants WHITNEY EDUCATION GROUP, INC. (WEG), WHITNEY LEADERSHIP GROUP, INC. (WLG), WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. (WIN), RUSS WHITNEY, and DAVID KELLER (collectively, Defendants) hereby submit their answer, defenses, and counterclaim in response to Plaintiffs' Amended Verified Complaint (Amended Complaint) filed by plaintiffs Pete Youngs and Tony Youngs (collectively the Youngs or Plaintiffs).
ANSWER

In answering the Amended Complaint, Defendants deny all allegations in the headings and unnumbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint. Defendants respond to the numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

2. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.

3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint.

4. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that WLG is a Florida corporation and that it may be served through its counsel of record, Courtland Reichman, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.

5. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Russ Whitney is a resident of the State of Florida and that he may be served through his counsel of record, Courtland Reichman, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5.

6. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that David Keller resides in Arizona and that he may be served through his counsel of record, Courtland Reichman, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.

7. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 over Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.; admit that venue is proper in this district against WIN and WEG under 28 U.S.C. § 1400; and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.

8. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have asserted claims for damages in excess of $75,000. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. In response to the second sentence in Paragraph 9, Defendants respond that Exhibits A1-Al 1 to the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

10. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

11. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

12. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint.
13. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint.
14. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint.
15. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint.
16. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint.
17. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint.
18. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Russ Whitney approached Plaintiffs and asked Plaintiffs and other WEG instructors to contribute information to a potential book related to real estate investing. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs were to be acknowledged for their contributions to the book, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint.
19. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Russ Whitney authored a book entitled Millionaire Real Estate Mentor: The Secrets to Financial Freedom Through Real Estate Investing. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint.

20. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT ONE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

21. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 21, Defendants respond that Exhibits A1-AI I to the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
22. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
23. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint.
24. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Defendant Keller currently is an independent contractor of WEG, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint.
25. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that each of the Defendants has had access to certain of Plaintiffs' materials, and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint.
26. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that WEG utilizes the Internet to advertise and sell WEG educational seminars and related materials regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating, and selling real estate that is in foreclosure. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint.
27. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint.
28. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint.
29. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint.
30. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint.
31. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint.
32. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint.
33. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT TWO FRAUD

34. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint.
35. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint.
36. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint.
37. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint.
38. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint.
39. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT THREE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

40. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint.
41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint.
42. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint.
43. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint.
44. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint.
45. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT FOUR DEFENDANT KELLER'S MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

46. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint.
47. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint.
48. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint.
49. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint.
50. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT FIVE DEFENDANT KELLER'S MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS

51. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint.
52. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint.
53. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint.
54. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint.
55. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT SIX PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

56. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint.
57. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint.
58. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint.
59. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint.
60. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint.
61. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT SEVEN BREACH OF CONTRACT

62. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Amended Complaint.
63. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint.
64. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint.
65. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint.
COUNT EIGHT COMPLAINT FOR EXPENSES OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 13-
6-11

66. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint.
Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief set forth in the unnumbered WHEREFORE Paragraph following Paragraph 66, beginning on page 21 of the Amended Complaint.
DEFENSES

Without assuming the burden of proof where it otherwise rests with Plaintiffs, Defendants plead the following defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint:
FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Russ Whitney.
SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant WLG.
THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant David Keller.
FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and each and every claim and count thereof, fails to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted.
FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs, by their own conduct and actions, are estopped to recover any judgment or obtain any relief against Defendants.
SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver and/or acquiescence.
EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs' unclean hands.
NINTH DEFENSE

Any information, to which Plaintiffs claim infringement by Defendants, is in the public domain and is not copyright protected.
NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claim for copyright infringement should be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not and cannot show that their allegedly infringed works are copyright protected expressions, as opposed to merely ideas.
TENTH DEFENSE

At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants acted in good faith towards Plaintiffs.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have not pleaded with particularity or specificity any cognizable claim of fraud or fraudulent conduct on the part of Defendants, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims for fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation should be dismissed because Defendants made no material misrepresentation(s) or omission(s) to Plaintiffs.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claim for fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation should be dismissed because Plaintiffs did not suffer any damages as a result of the purported misrepresentation(s) or omission(s).
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims for fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not shown justifiable reliance on the purported misrepresentation(s) or omission(s).
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims for malicious interference with business relations should be dismissed because Defendant Keller did not induce third parties to refrain from entering into or continuing business relationships with Plaintiffs.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages fails to satisfy the applicable pleading standards for punitive damages under Georgia and/or federal law and should be dismissed on that basis.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and malicious interference with contractual relations should be dismissed because Plaintiffs' written contract expired one (1) year from the date of commencement on March 27, 1997.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages are barred or otherwise limited by O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 and the United States Constitution.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon any other defense that may become available or appear during the proceedings in this case and hereby reserve their right to amend this Answer to assert any such defense.
Defendants deny each and every allegation of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint not admitted or otherwise specifically responded to above. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have alleged any basis sufficient in fact or law for any of the prayers or declarations sought by Plaintiffs.
COUNTERCLAIM

NOW COME Whitney Education Group, Inc. (WEG), Whitney Leadership Group, Inc. (WLG), Whitney Information Network, Inc. (WIN), Russ Whitney, and David Keller (collectively, Counterclaim Plaintiffs), and pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state their Counterclaim against Plaintiffs Tony Youngs and Pete Youngs (collectively, the Youngs or Counterclaim Defendants) and show the Court as follows:
NATURE OF COUNTERCLAIM

1. Counterclaim Plaintiffs hereby seek declaratory relief from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties.
2. Counterclaim Plaintiffs hereby assert against the Youngs claims for attorneys' fees and expenses under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 505.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the counterclaims alleged in this action arise under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 505 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Further, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the additional counterclaims alleged herein because the additional counterclaims are so related to the counterclaims that are within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4. The Youngs, as Counterclaim Defendants, are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court for purposes of this Counterclaim because they reside and do business in this District. The Youngs also are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because the Youngs affirmatively invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the Amended Complaint.
5. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim Defendants, Tony Youngs and Pete Youngs, are residents of the State of Georgia and have conducted in the State of Georgia seminars regarding purchasing and rehabilitating foreclosed property.
6. Counterclaim Plaintiff WIN is a Colorado corporation doing business in the State of Georgia, Cobb County.
7. Counterclaim Plaintiff WEG is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Georgia, Cobb County.
8. Counterclaim Plaintiff WLG is a Florida corporation.
9. Counterclaim Plaintiff Russ Whitney is a resident of the State of Florida.
10. Counterclaim Plaintiff David Keller is a resident of the State of Arizona.
11. Counterclaim Plaintiffs contest the jurisdiction of this Court over the persons of Defendants Russ Whitney, WLG, and David Keller and without waiving their rights to contest personal jurisdiction over these Defendants, assert this Counterclaim for attorneys' fees and declaratory judgment.
12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28. U.S.C. § 1400.