{"cached_at":"2026-11-09T11:48:46.812898+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69864407","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","id":69864407,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1136/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-04-09T08:08:12.475373-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:41:51.038040-08:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jesse M. Furman","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-04-09","date_terminated":"2025-06-24","date_last_filing":"2025-06-24","case_name_short":"Sadowski","case_name":"Sadowski v. LawNewz, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc","docket_number":"1:25-cv-02917","docket_number_core":"2502917","docket_number_raw":"1:25-cv-02917","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JMF","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"640221","cause":"17:501 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-04-09T08:08:12.470495-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16639613/","id":16639613,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10852278/","attorney_id":10852278,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","docket_id":69864407,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","docket_id":69864407,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:21.977114-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:37:21.977122-08:00","name":"LawNewz, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16639612/","id":16639612,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10852276/","attorney_id":10852276,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","docket_id":69864407,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10852277/","attorney_id":10852277,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","docket_id":69864407,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","docket_id":69864407,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:20.816862-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:37:20.816877-08:00","name":"Christopher Sadowski","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443226370/","id":443226370,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457857632/","id":457857632,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:23.030754-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.302942-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:22.496063-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.279339-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case Designated ECF. (jgo)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443226369/","id":443226369,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457857631/","id":457857631,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:22.478241-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.260545-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:22.463604-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.237750-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis is designated to handle matters that may be referred in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (jgo)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443226368/","id":443226368,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457857630/","id":457857630,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:22.411997-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.222328-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T12:37:22.380646-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.192795-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(jgo)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/429428847/","id":429428847,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/443683658/","id":443683658,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/20/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-24T14:06:36.610071-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:27.063963-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037753859","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-24T14:06:36.601339-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:27.045384-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-24","time_filed":"16:53:05","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":60,"description":"STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel that, whereas no party in this action is an infant or incompetent, the above captioned action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with each party to bear its respective attorney's fees and costs. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 15 and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/24/2025) (tg) (Entered: 06/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/429351124/","id":429351124,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/443604418/","id":443604418,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/19/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-24T08:10:19.277900-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:27.023588-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037748180","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"AO 121 Form Copyright - Case Terminated - Submitted","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-24T08:10:19.265091-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:27.003295-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-24","time_filed":"09:50:27","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":58,"description":"AO 121 FORM COPYRIGHT - CASE TERMINATED- SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 508, the Register of Copyrights is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 6/23/2025 in a court action filed on the following copyright(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Form e-mailed to Register of Copyrights on 6/24/2025. (tp) (Entered: 06/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/429239480/","id":429239480,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/443488922/","id":443488922,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/18/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-23T10:10:20.915534-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-06T06:33:30.127882-08:00","sha1":"7a9eebf81d33178622c51215ded43f7986155133","page_count":1,"file_size":1174372,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 18 Filed 06/23/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n uNITEI) $r*rES IlIsrRrc.T counT\n SOUTHERN DIST'KICT OT ITE1ryYORK\n\n\n Christopher Sadowski,\n\n Plaintitr,\n\n Case No: 1 :25-cv-02917 -IMF\n\n\n LawNewz,. Inc.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL\n PURSUANT TO r'.RC.q. 4L6l(I){Al(ii}\n\n IT IS ffSREgY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and betweenthe parties and/ortheir\n\nrespective counsel that, whereas no party in this action is an infant or incompetent, the above\n\ncaptioned action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil\n\nProcedure al(a)(1)(Axii) with each parly to bear its respective attomey's fees and costs.\n\nDated: lune23,2025\n\nLAWNEWZ,INC. SANDERS LAW GROUP\n SAF{I}ERS\n\n\nElizabeth Vulaj, Esq, J**ua D. Vera, Esq-\n126l Broadw&y, Sixth Floor 333 Earle Ovington Blvd, Suite 4AZ\nh{ew York, NY 10001 LJniondale, hiY 1 1553\nTel: (646) 370-1258 Tel: (s16) 203-7600\nEmaitr : eliesbsthi6:sbr.*ffi +:nre ip,qem Ernai I : j vr rar$ wrt *$.e,rs I fl tt., grg*S\n\nAttorneys for Defr ndant\n Attorneys for Plaint iff\n\n\n\nSO ORI}ERET}.\n\n\n JESSE M. FIJRMAN\n United States District Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-05T12:41:50.933746-08:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037740442","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-23T10:10:20.904667-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.963433-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-23","time_filed":"11:15:08","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":54,"description":"STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) LawNewz, Inc. pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by Christopher Sadowski. Proposed document to be reviewed and processed by Clerk's Office staff (No action required by chambers)...(Vera, Joshua) (Entered: 06/23/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/428630924/","id":428630924,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/442860805/","id":442860805,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/17/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-16T12:09:59.914313-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.940217-08:00","sha1":"bad169f0a775ea19d3f11c414e4c5e83343a553a","page_count":1,"file_size":125891,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 17 Filed 06/16/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------X\n :\n CHRISTOPHER SADOWSKI, :\n :\n Plaintiff, : 25-CV-2917 (JMF)\n :\n -v- : ORDER\n :\n LAWNEWZ, INC., :\n :\n Defendant. :\n :\n ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X\n\nJESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:\n\n On June 13, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 15. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff has\ntwenty-one (21) days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b) to amend the complaint once\nas a matter of course.\n\n Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by\nJuly 7, 2025. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15.1, available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/\nrules, any amended complaint should be filed with a redline showing all differences between the\noriginal and revised filings. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the\ncomplaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.\n\n If Plaintiff does amend, by three (3) weeks after the amended complaint is filed,\nDefendant shall: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) file a letter on ECF\nstating that it relies on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If Defendant files an answer or a\nnew motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. If\nDefendant files a new motion to dismiss or indicates that it relies on its previously filed motion\nto dismiss, any opposition shall be filed within fourteen days, and any reply shall be filed within\nseven days of any opposition.\n\n If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to\ndismiss by July 7, 2025. Defendant\u2019s reply, if any, shall be filed by July 14, 2025.\n\n Finally, it is further ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference previously scheduled\nfor July 17, 2025 is adjourned sine die.\n\n SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: June 16, 2025 __________________________________\n New York, New York JESSE M. FURMAN\n United States District Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-06-17T02:27:13.970857-07:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037706427","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-16T12:09:59.905148-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.918015-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-16","time_filed":"14:30:30","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":51,"description":"ORDER, It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by July 7, 2025. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15.1, available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules, any amended complaint should be filed with a redline showing all differences between the original and revised filings. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by July 7, 2025. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by July 14, 2025. Finally, it is further ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference previously scheduled for July 17, 2025 is adjourned sine die. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 7/7/2025., Responses due by 7/7/2025, Replies due by 7/14/2025.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/16/25) (yv) (Entered: 06/16/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/428473467/","id":428473467,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/442697880/","id":442697880,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/15/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-13T14:07:18.990363-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.839366-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037699946","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-13T14:07:18.974575-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.813769-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-13","time_filed":"16:40:50","entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":46,"description":"FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Document filed by LawNewz, Inc...(Vulaj, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/428473389/","id":428473389,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/442697802/","id":442697802,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/16/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-13T14:07:15.737060-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-06T06:40:41.798093-08:00","sha1":"eb62680c9027acc2c5054f0c009ed2064e7da47c","page_count":25,"file_size":280571,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.16.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.16.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 1 of 25\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n CHRISTOPHER SADOWSKI, Case No. 1:25-cv-02917\n Plaintiff,\n MEMORANDUM OF\n LAW IN SUPPORT OF\n DEFENDANT\u2019S\n MOTION TO DISMISS\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n v. COMPLAINT\n PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.\n 12(b)(6)\n\n LAWNEWZ, INC.,\n Defendant.\n\n PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in support\n\nof Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint, dated April 9, 2025, the exhibits attached\n\nthereto, and upon all the papers and proceedings previously had in this matter, Defendant\n\nrespectfully moves this Court before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York, at the United States District Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,\n\nCourtroom 1105, New York, NY 10007, for an Order dismissing Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski\u2019s\n\nComplaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon\n\nwhich relief can be granted on the ground that defenses exist upon documentary evidence, together\n\nwith such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 2 of 25\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nINTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1-2\n\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 2-4\n\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 4-5\n\nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6\n\n I. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS AS DEFENDANT\u2019S USE OF THE\n THUMBNAIL PHOTO CONSTITUTES FAIR USE ............................................................ 6\n a. Defendant\u2019s Use of the Photo was Transformative and for a News Reporting\n Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 7\n b. The Factual Nature of the Photo Favors Fair Use .................................................... 10\n c. Defendant Did Not Use Any More of the Thumbnail Photo than Necessary for Fair\n Use\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 12\n d. Defendant\u2019s Use Does Not Usurp the Market for Plaintiff\u2019s Work ........................ 14\n\n II. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS AS DEFENDANT\u2019S USE WAS DE\n MINIMIS AND THEREFORE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n ORIGINAL PHOTO ............................................................................................................... 16\n\n III. DEFENDANT\u2019S UTILIZATION OF THE PHOTO AS A THUMBNAIL IMAGE\n IS A NON-INFRINGING FAIR USE................................................................................. \u202618\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 19\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 3 of 25\n\n\n\n\n Table of Authorities\n\nCases\nAndy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith,\n 598 U.S. 508 (2023) .............................................................................................. 11\n\nAshcroft v. Iqbal,\n 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................ 2, 3\n\nAuthors Guild v. Google Inc.,\n 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 8, 9, 11, 18\n\nA.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,\n 562 F.3d 630 (2009) .............................................................................................. 11\n\nBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,\n 550 U.S. 433 (2007) ............................................................................................ 2, 3\n\nBill Graham Archives, LLC. v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.,\n 386 F.Supp.2d 324, 329 (S.D.N.Y. May 2005)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026......9, 12, 15, 18\n\nBill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.,\n 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 7, 12\n\nBlanch v. Koons,\n 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 8, 10, 12\n\nBurgin v. National Football League,\n 2014 WL 1760112\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026 17\n\nCali v. Chrysler Group, LLC,\n 426 Fed. App\u2019x. 38 (2d Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 3\n\nCole v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,\n 2012 WL 3133520 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ....................................................................... 4\n\nCampbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,\n 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ............................................................................................ 7, 8\n\nCapitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.,\n 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 14\n\nCariou v. Prince,\n 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 8, 12\n\nFox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc.,\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 4 of 25\n\n\n\n\n 43 F.Supp.3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026 14\n\nGiammatteo v. Newton,\n 452 Fed. App\u2019x. 24 (2d Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 3\n\nGottlieb Dev. LLC. v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,\n 590 F. Supp. 2d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................... 16\n\nHannley v. Mann,\n 2023 WL 3407183 (C.D. Ca. 2023)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026 18\n\nHughes v. Benjamin,\n 437 F. Supp. 3d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ..................................................................... 6\n\nKelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,\n 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026... 13, 15\n\nKing Spider LLC v. Panda (Hong Kong) Technology Co., Ltd.,\n 2025 WL 89123 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026... 10\n\nLopez v. Big Commerce Inc.,\n 2017 WL 3278932 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026 18\n\nMarano v. Metro Museum of Art,\n 472 F. Supp. 3d 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ..................................................................... 14\n\nMarano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art,\n 844 Fed. App\u2019x. 436 (2d Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 6\n\nMarvullo v. Gruner & Jahr,\n 105 F. Supp. 2d 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ..................................................................... 3\n\nMathieson v. Associated Press,\n 1992 WL 164447 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ................................................................... 7, 12\n\nMorris v. Wise,\n 2020 WL 2475839 (N.D. Ohio 2020)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.... 18\n\nNXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute,\n 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 7\n\nOlkey v. Hyperion 1999 Term Trust, Inc.,\n 98 F.3d 2 (2d Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 3\n\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.\n 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026... 18\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 5 of 25\n\n\n\n\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.,\n 2013 WL 4777189 (N.D. Ca. 2013)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 15\n\nRinggold v. Black Entm\u2019t. T.V. Inc.,\n 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 16\n\nRitani, LLC v. Aghjayan,\n 970 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ..................................................................... 4\n\nRudkowski v. Mic Network, Inc.,\n 2018 WL 1801307 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ..................................................................... 17\n\nRosen v. eBay, Inc.,\n 2015 WL 16000081 (C.D. Ca. 2015)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 13\n\nSarl Louis Feraud Int\u2019l v. Viewfinder, Inc.,\n 627 F. Supp. 2d 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................... 12\n\nSmith v. City of New York,\n 2013 WL 1903856 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ....................................................................... 3\n\nSwatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. v. Bloomberg, L.P.,\n 742 F.3d 17, 89 (2d Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 12\n\nTCA Television Corp. v. McCollum,\n 839 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 6, 14\n\nWright v. Warner Books, Inc.,\n 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991) .................................................................................... 7\n\nYang v. Mic Network Inc.,\n 2022 WL 906513 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2022)........................................................... 6, 7\n\nStatutes\n\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 ........................................................................................................... 2, 6, 7\n\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501 ................................................................................................................... 1\n\nRules\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .............................................................. 1-4, 6, 17\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 6 of 25\n\n\n\n\n Defendant LawNewz, Inc. (\u201cLaw&Crime\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d) respectfully requests that the\n\nCourt dismiss Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski\u2019s (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) Complaint pursuant to the Federal\n\nRule of Civil Procedure (\u201cF.R.C.P.\u201d) 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be\n\ngranted in its entirety.\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski, an individual claiming legal and rightful ownership over\n\nthe materials at issue in this case (see Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1, \u00b6 2) (hereinafter\n\n\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Complaint\u201d), has insufficiently set forth claims alleging that Defendant engaged in\n\nwillful copyright infringement of one (1) photo (the \u201cPhoto\u201d), that Plaintiff incorrectly alleges was\n\nshown in one (1) video posted to Law&Crime\u2019s Facebook account on July 5, 2024, originally\n\nentitled \u201cP. Diddy Grand Jury Probe Confirmed as New Allegations Exposed\u201d,1 but was never\n\nactually shown in the playing of the video. The Photo depicts a general image of a courthouse and\n\nnowhere in the playing of the video is the Photo actually shown \u2013 instead, only a portion of the\n\nPhoto was used as a brief thumbnail image for the video, as the thumbnail Photo was partially\n\ncovered by another photo showing Sean Combs (see Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1,\n\nExhibit 2). Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant has engaged in copyright infringement\n\npursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501 by infringing Plaintiff\u2019s right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly\n\ndisplay his work. Simply put, Plaintiff\u2019s copyright infringement claims fail because Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as required by the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure.\n\n\n\n\n1\n See: P. Diddy Grand Jury Probe Confirmed as New Allegations Exposed, FACEBOOK, July 5, 2024,\nhttps://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime/videos/p-diddy-grand-jury-probe-confirmed-as-new-allegations-\nexposed/372023729245339/.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 7 of 25\n\n\n\n\n First, Plaintiff\u2019s claims fail pursuant to the fair use doctrine, as Defendant\u2019s use of the\n\nPhoto falls squarely within the \u201cnews reporting and \u201ccommentary\u201d exceptions of fair use\n\nenumerated in the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107. An analysis of the fair use factors establishes\n\nthat Defendant\u2019s use of the thumbnail Photo was (i) fair use, as the thumbnail Photo was used for\n\nnews reporting purposes, to provide context to the actual content of the video itself, which\n\ndiscussed the latest probes by the grand jury during Sean Combs\u2019 case, which at that point had not\n\nyet resulted in his indictment; (ii) courts within this Circuit and others have held that displaying a\n\nthumbnail photo of a video (similar to what occurred in this matter) is a form of non-infringing\n\nfair use, and any copyright claims thereof must fail; and (iii) Defendant\u2019s usage of the underlying\n\nPhoto is de minimis, as it consisted of a mere thumbnail image, which was partially obscured and\n\nshown on the preview of the actual video, and never once was the underlying Photo shown in the\n\nactual playing of the video.\n\n For these reasons and those discussed in greater detail herein, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint\n\nwarrants dismissal in its entirety.\n\n\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\n This Court may grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) where the\n\ncomplaint fails to state a claim upon which relief should be granted (\u201cRule 12(b)(6)\u201d). \u201cTo survive\n\na Rule 12(b)(6) motion, however, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts \u2018to state a claim to relief\n\nthat is plausible on its face.\u2019\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.\n\nv. Twombly, 550 U.S. 433, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible \u201cwhen the plaintiff pleads\n\nfactual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable\n\nfor the misconduct alleged.\u201d Id. Moreover, a \u201cplaintiff must allege \u2018more than a sheer possibility\n\nthat a defendant acted unlawfully\u2019\u201d and a \u201ccomplaint that offers only \u2018labels and conclusions\u2019 or a\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 8 of 25\n\n\n\n\n\u2018formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.\u2019\u201d Smith v. City of New York,\n\n2013 WL 1903856, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) (granting defendant\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion)).\n\nThis standard has been upheld by the Second Circuit for years. See Giammatteo v. Newton, 452\n\nFed. App\u2019x. 24 (2d Cir. 2011) (upholding lower court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s complaint pursuant\n\nto Rule 12(b)(6)); Olkey v. Hyperion 1999 Term Trust, Inc., 98 F.3d 2, 9 (2d Cir. 1996) (upholding\n\nthe lower court\u2019s dismissal, stating that \u201cdismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate because \u2018it\n\nis clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with\n\nthe allegations\u2019\u201d); Cali v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 426 Fed. App\u2019x. 38 (2d Cir. 2011) (upholding the\n\nlower court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).\n\n Moreover, Plaintiff must plead \u201cenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on\n\nits face\u201d and Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to \u201cnudge their claims across the lien from\n\nconceivable to plausible.\u201d Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint for failure\n\nto state a claim under rule 12(b)(6)). Further, \u201c[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff\n\npleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is\n\nliable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (holding the plaintiff failed to plead\n\nsufficient facts to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). Plaintiff must do more than allege\n\nbare legal conclusions with no factual support to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule\n\n12(b)(6).\n\n Courts in this circuit have granted Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss when it is clear that\n\nthe face of the complaint alleging copyright infringement fails to meet the standards set by the\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Marvullo v. Gruner & Jahr, 105 F. Supp. 2d 225, 233\n\n(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (granting defendant\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, as the court noted\n\nplaintiff\u2019s allegations of direct copyright infringement suffered from \u201c\u2026fatal defects, including of\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 9 of 25\n\n\n\n\nvagueness and conclusoriness\u2026\u201d). When there are no facts supplied in a plaintiff\u2019s complaint\n\nregarding the actions alleged (particularly in regard to copyright infringement claims), courts in\n\nthis circuit have dismissed such pleadings in their entirety, in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6). See\n\nCole v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012 WL 3133520, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012) (dismissing\n\nplaintiff\u2019s amended complaint entirely, as \u201cPlaintiff has pleaded no facts capable of showing that\n\nWiley\u2019s alleged fraudulent acts\u2026led to any direct and proximate loss\u2026that would have been\n\ncaused by Wiley\u2019s copyright infringement\u201d); Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan, 970 F. Supp. 2d 232, 262\n\n(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (upholding aspects of lower court\u2019s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), stating\n\nthat \u201cRitani, however, offers no facts supporting the conclusory allegation that an alleged loss of\n\nsales resulted from any wrongful conduct by Aghjayan, or that Aghjayan even possessed\n\nconfidential information or used such information inappropriately\u201d).\n\n When courts within this circuit have determined that if a plaintiff\u2019s complaint fails to\n\nprovide sufficient factual contentions and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that\n\nwarrants dismissal of the pleading in its entirety.\n\n\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n LawNewz, Inc. (d/b/a \u201cLaw&Crime\u201d), is a multi-platform media company providing\n\ncoverage of the largest courtroom trials across the nation, sharp legal news and analysis, and\n\ngripping true crime content. Founded in 2016 by television host and ABC News\u2019 Chief Legal\n\nAnalyst, Dan Abrams, Law&Crime has been the go-to source for delivering breaking news within\n\nthe legal space for nearly a decade. Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski is an individual claiming to be\n\na \u201cprofessional photographer by trade who is the legal and rightful owner of certain photographs\n\nwhich Plaintiff commercially licenses.\u201d See Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint, ECF. Doc. No. 1, \u00b6 12. At issue\n\nin this case is the general photograph Plaintiff took of the exterior of an unidentified courthouse,\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 10 of 25\n\n\n\n\nwhich Plaintiff claims he created \u201cwith the intention of it being used commercially and for the\n\npurpose of display and/or public distribution.\u201d See Id. at \u00b6 20.\n\n The Photo of the exterior of a courthouse was partially used by Law&Crime as a mere\n\nthumbnail image for the video published to Law&Crime\u2019s Facebook account, on July 5, 2024 and\n\nnever once was the underlying Photo shown in the actual playing of the Video. Moreover, the\n\nentirety of the Photo was not used as the thumbnail image \u2013 rather, nearly half of the image was\n\ncovered by a photo of Sean Combs, the subject of the video. Further, the Photo was utilized to\n\nprovide further context for the viewer regarding the subject matter of the underlying video \u2013\n\nspecifically, to provide coverage of breaking news that another lawsuit was being filed against\n\nCombs alleging misconduct, and that at the time, outlets were reporting that a federal grand jury\n\nin New York was hearing evidence about Combs (which ultimately led to his eventual indictment\n\njust two months later).\n\n It is clear that Plaintiff has failed to properly allege that Defendant\u2019s usage of the Photo\n\nconstitutes copyright infringement and that dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s claims is warranted due to the\n\nfact that (i) Defendant\u2019s use of the Photo as a partially obscured thumbnail image that was not\n\ndisplayed or shown even once in the actual playing of the Video constituted fair use; (ii)\n\nDefendant\u2019s usage of the Photo itself was de minimis; and (iii) usage of a photo as a thumbnail\n\nimage in a video has been upheld by courts as non-infringing.\n\n Thus, dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint in its entirety is warranted for the reasons set forth\n\nherein.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 11 of 25\n\n\n\n\n ARGUMENT\n I. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS AS DEFENDANT\u2019S USE OF THE\n THUMBNAIL PHOTO CONSTITUTES FAIR USE\n Defendant\u2019s use of the Photo is permissible by law, as an analysis of the fair use factors\n\ndemonstrates that Defendant\u2019s use constitutes as fair use, and therefore does not violate Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nexclusive rights to the Photo. The Copyright Act states that \u201cthe fair use of a copyrighted work,\n\nincluding such use \u2026 for purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting \u2026 is not an\n\ninfringement of copyright.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107. Defendant\u2019s use of the Photo as a thumbnail image\n\nconstitutes fair use primarily because its usage falls squarely within the news reporting,\n\ncommentary, and criticism exception of fair use enumerated in the Copyright Act. Further, the four\n\nfactors courts utilize when determining fair use all weigh in favor of Defendant.\n\n The Second Circuit \u201chas acknowledged the possibility of fair use being so clearly\n\nestablished by a complaint as to support dismissal of a copyright infringement claim\u201d on a Rule\n\n12(b)(6) motion. TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168, 178 (2d Cir. 2016).\n\nAccordingly, this Court has considered fair use when granting a defendant\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion\n\nto dismiss by comparing the allegedly infringing work described in the complaint with the original,\n\nand the Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal on these grounds. See, e.g., Yang v. Mic Network\n\nInc., 2022 WL 906513, at *1, *3 (2d Cir. March 29, 2022); Hughes v. Benjamin, 437 F. Supp. 3d\n\n382, 395 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020); & Marano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 844 Fed. App\u2019x.\n\n436, 439 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 213 (2021).\n\n When determining whether the use of a work constitutes fair use, courts examine four\n\nfactors provided by the Copyright Act: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of\n\nthe copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the\n\ncopyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 12 of 25\n\n\n\n\nof the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107. Courts examine all four of these factors on a separate\n\nbasis and then balance them together collectively, \u201cin light of the purposes of copyright,\u201d with no\n\nsingle factor being entirely dispositive. Bill Graham Archives v. Dorsley Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d\n\n605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006) & NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471, 479 (2d Cir. 2004). If a\n\nmajority of the factors weigh in favor of a fair use finding, then the use at issue is considered fair\n\nuse, and dismissal of the pleading is usually granted. See Yang, 2022 WL 906513, at *1, *3.\n\n In this instance, Defendant\u2019s utilization of the Photo as a thumbnail image constitutes as\n\nfair use, as all four factors of the fair use doctrine have unquestioningly been met to the extent that\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s Complaint cannot possibly state a plausible claim for copyright infringement.\n\n a. Defendant\u2019s Use of the Photo Was Transformative and for a News Reporting\n Purpose\n With respect to the first factor, which examines the purpose and character of the use of the\n\nwork at issue, \u201cthe enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the\n\noriginal creation, or whether and to what extent it is transformative, altering the original with new\n\nexpression, meaning, or message.\u201d Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)\n\n& Mathieson v. Associated Press, 1992 WL 164447 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 1992). Section 107 of the\n\nCopyright Act specifically carves out news reporting, commentary, and criticism as protectable\n\nfair use purposes, and the Second Circuit has held that \u201cif a [work] falls into one of these categories\n\n[\u2026] assessment of the first fair use factor should be at an end.\u201d Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953\n\nF.2d 731, 737 (2d Cir. 1991). The actual Video was coverage of a breaking news story at the time\n\n\u2013 specifically, the latest lawsuit filed against Sean Combs and reports that a New York federal\n\ngrand jury began to hear evidence regarding Combs (eventually culminating in his September 2024\n\nindictment by the Southern District of New York). The use of the Photo as a thumbnail image\n\nassisted in providing context to the viewer as to what they were about to watch, as it consisted of\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 13 of 25\n\n\n\n\nan image of a non-identified photo of a courthouse, emphasizing the key role the grand jury played\n\nwere about to play in Combs\u2019 eventual indictment. As such, the purpose of the use of the Photo as\n\na thumbnail image was journalistic, assisting to provide context to the viewer regarding the subject\n\nmatter of the underlying video. Moreover, the news-worthiness purpose is proven even further by\n\nthe fact that the video was published on July 5, 2024, ensuring Law&Crime viewers would be able\n\nto receive this news and unique take on the issue in a timely manner (in or around the same time\n\nthe news actually occurred). Law&Crime is a multi-platform news company focused on, among\n\nother things, providing coverage of breaking news in the legal realm and ongoing court cases,\n\ninvestigations, and trials. Thus, its timely reporting of this development in Combs\u2019 case and its fair\n\nuse of the image is precisely the entire purpose of Law&Crime as a whole, and therefore\n\nstrengthens the position that the use was purely for news reporting purposes.\n\n Moreover, the use of the Photo is clearly transformative. A use is transformative if it\n\n\u201ccommunicates something new and different from the original or expands its utility.\u201d Authors\n\nGuild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015). The Second Circuit has observed that\n\n\u201c[t]he law imposes no requirement that a work comment on the original or its author in order to be\n\nconsidered transformative\u2026\u201d Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 706 (2d Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 571\n\nU.S. 1018 (2013). Rather, a use is transformative as long as it \u201cadds something new, with a further\n\npurpose or different character.\u201d Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. For example, in Blanch v. Koons, the\n\nSecond Circuit held that a visual artist made a transformative use of a copyrighted picture of a\n\nwoman\u2019s legs and glittery Gucci sandals. 467 F.3d 244, 251-53 (2d Cir. 2006). The artist copied\n\nthe image, originally intended to communicate a sexualized, glamorous lifestyle, and included it\n\nin a collage painting as part of an artistic commentary on the banality of mass media. Id. The court\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 14 of 25\n\n\n\n\nfound that the purpose of the collage as distinct from the original work, and the use was thus found\n\nto be fair.\n\n Here, Defendant\u2019s usage of the Photo was clearly transformative, both in how the Photo\n\nwas actually used for purposes of reporting on the story, as well as the purposes of the use itself.\n\nFirstly, the Photo itself was not used in its original form \u2013 rather, Law&Crime used a significantly\n\naltered version of the Photo for purposes of news reporting: i) first, the original image itself was\n\nnot displayed once in the Video; ii) as the thumbnail image, Defendant utilized a clearly much\n\nsmaller version than the original Photo; and iii) the Photo shown as a thumbnail image was nearly\n\nhalf covered by another photo of Sean Combs (the subject of the video itself). Further, the Photo\n\nwas not being used by Defendant for the same purposes as its original function \u2013 Defendant\n\npurports in his complaint that the purpose of the photo was created with the intention of it being\n\nused commercially and for the purpose of display/public distribution (see Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint,\n\nECF Doc. No. 1, \u00b6 20), whereas Defendant\u2019s main purpose in utilizing the thumbnail was purely\n\nfor news reporting, in an effort to provide adequate and critical context to the viewer as to the\n\nimportance of the role the grand jury and the overall legal system would play in Combs\u2019 eventual\n\nindictment. Defendant\u2019s transformative purpose provides new context to the Photo that Defendant\n\nused in its reporting by presenting it in a different light from its original intention. Defendant did\n\nnot merely use the Photo as a generic stock photo to drum up more views, but rather it was used\n\nas a helpful illustration of the subject of the underlying video itself. In such an instance, courts\n\nhave deemed such usage of a thumbnail image as transformative. See: Bill Graham Archives, LLC.\n\nv. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 386 F.Supp.2d 324, 329 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005)(stating \u201c\u2026 his use\n\nis sufficiently transformative, and different from the original purpose to advertise, draw attention\n\nto and solicit listeners to an event, such that the market is not one expected to be reserved to the\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 15 of 25\n\n\n\n\ncopyright holder.\u201d); Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 220 (2d Cir. 2015)(\u201c\u2026 the second factor favors\n\nfair use\u2026 because the secondary use transformatively provides valuable information about the\n\noriginal, rather than replicating protected expression in a manner that provides a meaningful\n\nsubstitute for the original.\u201d); & King Spider LLC v. Panda (Hong Kong) Technology Co., Ltd.,\n\n2025 WL 89123, 24-CV-2668, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2025)(granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss,\n\nstating: \u201c\u2026 a search engine\u2019s display of thumbnail images in search results amounts to non-\n\ninfringing fair use.\u201d). Further, even if the website in question which displayed a thumbnail version\n\nof the original photo is not a standard search engine such as Google or Yahoo!, courts have still\n\nruled websites with search functionality can still adopt this ruling. See: King Spider LLC, 2025\n\nWL 89123 at *8: \u201cThe Court finds that the images displayed on Pandabuy's website are akin to\n\nimages being collated by a Google search.\u201d As such, Defendant\u2019s transformative usage of the\n\nPhoto as a thumbnail image for news reporting purposes clearly meets the first factor of the fair\n\nuse analysis.\n\n b. The Factual Nature of the Photo Favors Fair Use\n The second factor analyzes the nature of the copyrighted work and considers \u201c(1) whether\n\nthe work is expressive or creative, such as a work of fiction, or more factual, with a greater leeway\n\nbeing allowed to a claim of fair use where the work is factual or informational, and (2) whether\n\nthe work is published or unpublished, with the scope for fair use involving unpublished works\n\nbeing considerably narrower.\u201d Blanch, 467 F.3d at 256 (citation omitted). The second factor favors\n\nDefendant because the underlying Photo itself is factual and non-creative in nature, and therefore\n\ndoes not warrant further protection in terms of copyright.\n\n First, the photo (and the thumbnail Photo derived therefrom) is completely factual and\n\ninformational. The face of Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint even makes clear that the thumbnail Photo comes\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 16 of 25\n\n\n\n\nfrom a non-creative, factual Photo taken of a courtroom. Indeed, the Photo was captured with little\n\nto no creative input from Plaintiff, as Plaintiff merely captured the courthouse exterior and the\n\nPhoto did not have additional artistic input such as coloring, lighting, or other individuals or props.\n\nThis type of circumstance has generally been deemed as more factual than expressive. See: Authors\n\nGuild, 804 F.3d at *220: deeming fair use present after snippet views of books, or thumbnails,\n\nwere featured on Google Books, noting the books were factual and that \u201cCourts have sometimes\n\nspeculated that this might mean that a finding of fair use is more favored when the copying is of\n\nfactual works than when copying is from works of fiction.\u201d & A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v.\n\niParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 641 (4th Cir. 2009)(affirmed district court granting summary\n\njudgment to defendant regarding plaintiff\u2019s copyright infringement claim, stating \u201c\u2026 even if the\n\nplaintiffs\u2019 works were highly creative in nature, iParadigms\u2019 use of the plaintiffs\u2019 works was not\n\nrelated to the creative core of the works.\u201d).\n\n While some courts within this Circuit have relied upon the recent Supreme Court decision\n\nin Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) for more\n\nrecent guidance regarding fair use, in which the Supreme Court of the United States found fair use\n\nwas not present as the works at issue shared a similar purpose in the depiction of two photos of\n\nmusical artist Prince, Defendant respectfully avers that Warhol is inapplicable to the instant case.\n\nFirstly, the works at issue in Warhol were creative and artistic in nature, as they involved creative\n\nportraits of a famous musician. This greatly differs from the instant matter, as the work at issue\n\nhere is a trivial thumbnail Photo of a larger original photo capturing a general courthouse, with no\n\nother artistic input, for the purposes of reporting on breaking news regarding the highly-followed\n\ncase of Sean Combs, which has been covered and followed by thousands all around the world.\n\nSecondly, the Supreme Court viewed the purposes of the works as similar in Warhol, whereas here\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 17 of 25\n\n\n\n\nthe purposes of the usage of the thumbnail Photo differ from the original purpose of the Photo.\n\nWhile Plaintiff took the original Photo to merely take a photo of a non-descript courthouse exterior,\n\nhere the Defendant utilized a trivial thumbnail of the Photo to serve the purpose of apprising the\n\ngeneral public of a newsworthy event and to provide more background and context to Sean Combs\u2019\n\ndeveloping legal case. As a result, Defendant is of the position that Warhol is distinguishable and\n\ntherefore inapplicable to the facts of this instant matter.\n\n c. Defendant Did Not Use Any More of the Thumbnail Photo than Necessary for\n Fair Use\n The third factor, which looks at the amount and substantiality of the original work used,\n\nconsiders whether \u201cthe quantity and value of the materials used are reasonable in relation to the\n\npurpose of the copying.\u201d Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 742 F.3d 17, 89 (2d Cir.\n\n2014) (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586); Blanch, 467 F.3d at 257. It is well-established in the\n\nSouthern District of New York that \u201ca commentator may fairly reproduce as much of the original,\n\ncopyrighted work as is necessary to his proper purpose.\u201d See Mathieson, 1992 WL 16447, at *8;\n\nBill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 613 (finding fair use even though the photographs at issue were\n\n\u201creproduced in their entirety\u201d); Sarl Louis Feraud Int\u2019l v. Viewfinder, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 123,\n\n133 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2008) (\u201c[T]he Second Circuit has found that entire reproductions can be\n\njustifiable where the purpose of the secondary work differs from the original.\u201d). This is particularly\n\ntrue for transformative works, which \u201cmust be [permitted] to \u2018conjure up\u2019 at least enough of the\n\noriginal\u2019 to fulfill its transformative purpose.\u201d Cariou, 714 F.3d at 710 (quoting Campbell, 510\n\nU.S. at 588).\n\n First, Defendant merely used a thumbnail photo of the original Photo (as opposed to\n\nutilizing the original Photo in its original, larger size) which courts have found to be a trivial, de\n\nminimis use as it constitutes only a small fragment of the larger Photo. See: Bill Graham Archives,\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 18 of 25\n\n\n\n\nLLC at 329. Second, the entirety of the underlying Photo was not utilized in the thumbnail, as the\n\nphoto was partially covered by a photo of Sean Combs (the main subject of the actual video),\n\ntherefore even further obscuring the original Photo. Third, Defendant utilized the Photo to provide\n\nfurther context to the video, a piece of critical news reporting commenting on then-breaking news\n\n(specifically, a then-tenth lawsuit filed against Combs alleging misconduct, and with news sources\n\nstating a federal grand jury in New York was hearing evidence about Combs, which ultimately led\n\nto his eventual indictment that occurred just two months later). Defendant utilized the Photo to\n\nprovide the public with further context regarding this newsworthy event on Combs\u2019 then-\n\ndeveloping legal case and to provide more explanation as to the grand jury/court\u2019s role in pushing\n\nalong Combs\u2019 indictment. It was necessary for Defendant to include a visual reference, as the\n\nthumbnail photo to help represent the court/grand jury\u2019s critical role in pushing along Combs\u2019 case\n\nand eventual indictment. Defendant\u2019s usage of the Photo was therefore necessary in order for\n\nDefendant to fulfill its transformative purpose. When defendants have utilized portions or\n\nderivatives of a work via a thumbnail (as is the case here), courts have ruled in favor of fair use.\n\nSee: Rosen v. eBay, Inc., 2015 WL 16000081, No. CV13-6801 MWF, *19 (C.D. Ca. Jan. 16,\n\n2015)(\u201c That the image is only derivatively a copy of Rosen's work further supports the Court's\n\ndetermination that the extent of copying is reasonable.\u201d) & Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d\n\n811, *821 (9th Cir. 2003)(\u201c\u2026 although Arriba did copy each of Kelly\u2019s images as a whole, it was\n\nreasonable to do so in light of Arriba\u2019s use of the images. It was necessary for Arriba to copy the\n\nentire image to allow users to recognize the image\u2026\u201d).\n\n Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendant.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 19 of 25\n\n\n\n\n d. Defendant\u2019s Use Does Not Usurp the Market for Plaintiff\u2019s Work\n The fourth and final factor in the fair use inquiry analyzes the effect of Defendant\u2019s use on\n\nthe market for the underlying Photo or its derivatives. This factor too strongly weighs in favor of\n\nDefendant, therefore warranting dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint. The fourth factor requires\n\ncourts to consider \u201cwhether the copy brings to the marketplace a competing substitute for the\n\noriginal, or its derivative, so as to deprive the rights holders of significant revenues because of the\n\nlikelihood that potential purchasers may opt to acquire the copy in preference to the original.\u201d See\n\nMarano v. Metro Museum of Art, 472 F. Supp. 3d 76, 87 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2020) (finding fair use\n\nand stating that courts are of the position that \u201cthe more transformative the secondary use, the less\n\nlikelihood that the secondary use substitutes for the original\u201d); TCA Television Corp., 151 F. Supp.\n\n3d at 434 (dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claims entirely, finding fair use was present and stating that \u201cit\n\nwas unlikely that a reasonable observer of the new work would find that [\u2026] reenactment [\u2026]\n\ncould usurp the market for the original [\u2026] performance of the Routine\u201d). Moreover, \u201c[f]actor\n\n[f]our is necessarily intertwined with [f]actor [o]ne; the more the objective of secondary use differs\n\nfrom that of the original, the less likely it will supplant the commercial market for the original.\u201d\n\nCapitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649, 662 (2d Cir. 2018).\n\n No plausible inference can be made from the face of Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint that any\n\npotential licensee could have received from the thumbnail Photo what they would have received\n\nby licensing the Photo directly from Plaintiff. It is implausible that any person seeking out a license\n\nfor the Photo would opt for the obscured thumbnail Photo used by Defendant in the Video, rather\n\nthan the actual Photo created by Plaintiff. In terms of thumbnails specifically, courts have ruled\n\nthat if a thumbnail usage of an underlying photo or piece of content differs from the original and\n\ndoes not serve as a replacement, the fourth fair use factor is weighed in defendant\u2019s favor. See:\n\nFox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 43 F.Supp.3d 379, 396 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014)(\u201cNo\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 20 of 25\n\n\n\n\nreasonable juror could find that people are using TVEyes as a substitute for watching Fox News\n\nbroadcasts on television. There is no history of any such use, and there is no realistic danger of\n\nany potential harm to the overall market of television watching from an \u201c\u2018unrestricted and\n\nwidespread conduct of the sort engaged in by defendant.\u2019\u201d) & Kelly, 336 F.3d at 821 (thumbnail\n\nreproduction of photographs in search engine constituted fair use in part because the thumbnails\n\ndid not harm the market for the original, underlying images).\n\n As previously explained, Defendant\u2019s use of the Photo was quintessentially transformative,\n\nutilizing the Photo not just as a visual aid for the content of the video itself, but helping to illustrate\n\nthe critical role that the court/grand jury played in this aspect of Combs\u2019 case. Moreover,\n\nDefendant\u2019s transformative use of the Photo makes it less likely for the Court to find Defendant\u2019s\n\nuse substituted for the Photo; as stated, the original photo was not utilized or shown in the Video,\n\nbut rather a smaller version of the Photo was utilized as a thumbnail and that thumbnail image was\n\nsignificantly covered/obscured by a photo of Combs. See: Bill Graham Archives, LLC at 329 ( \u201c\u2026\n\nthe significant reduction to thumbnail size of the images indicates an entirely different use of the\n\nimage\u2026 The transformative nature of the images supports a finding in favor of defendants.\u201d) &\n\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., 2013 WL 4777189, No. C 12-01521, *7 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 6,\n\n2013)(disposed of Perfect 10\u2019s direct infringement claims entirely, stating in regard to this factor:\n\n\u201cIn sum, there is no evidence in the record that Yandex.com\u2019s use of thumbnail versions of Perfect\n\n10's image during a nine-month period had any effect on the market for those same images.\u201d).\n\n And finally, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint is utterly devoid of the specific monetary drawbacks,\n\nloss of revenues, or decreases of business revenue as a result of Defendant\u2019s use of the thumbnail\n\nPhoto in the video. The underlying Photo at issue was taken nearly five years ago (see Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint, ECF Doc. No. 1, \u00b6 19) and is a generic image taken of an unidentified courthouse\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 21 of 25\n\n\n\n\nexterior, which is similar in nature to countless other stock photographs taken of the same image.\n\nThe Photo does not feature prominent individuals or public figures, does not show an unusual or\n\nhighly attended event, and does not constitute a photo or form of media that went \u201cviral\u201d \u2013\n\ntherefore, the likely minimal value of a generic image of a courthouse taken years ago would not\n\nbe usurped by Defendant\u2019s usage. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege any actual\n\nharm in regard to monetary decrease, market value, or any other similar reductions.\n\n Accordingly, the fourth factor weighs in favor of Defendant, and balancing all four fair use\n\nfactors together, the Court should find that Defendant\u2019s fair use defense appears on the face of\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s Complaint, therefore warranting dismissal of this action.\n\n II. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS AS DEFENDANT\u2019S USE WAS DE\n MINIMIS AND THEREFORE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S ORIGINAL PHOTO\n It is well established that in order to prevail on claims of copyright infringement a plaintiff\n\n\u201cmust prove that (1) unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work occurred, and (2) the infringing\n\nwork is substantially similar.\u201d See Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 590 F. Supp.\n\n2d, 625 631 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 29, 2008)(granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss in its entirety with\n\nprejudice). Moreover, to prove substantial similarity, \u201ca plaintiff must show (i) that it was protected\n\nexpression in the earlier work that was copied and (ii) that the amount that was copied is more\n\nthan de minimis.\u201d See id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court in\n\nGottlieb Dev. explained, \u201cthere is a difference between \u2018factual copying and actionable copying\u2019\u201d\n\nSee id. (quoting Ringgold v. Black Entm\u2019t. T.V. Inc., 126 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 1997). In further\n\nexplanation of this principle, the Court stated that \u201c\u2026if the copying is de minimis and so trivial as\n\nto fall below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity, the copying is not actionable.\u201d See\n\nid. In assessing whether a use is de minimis, \u201ccourts often look to the amount of the copyrighted\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 22 of 25\n\n\n\n\nwork that was copied. This quantitative component must be considered together with the\n\nqualitative similarity between the two works, with the Court asking whether an average lay\n\nobserver would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted\n\nwork.\u201d See Rudkowski v. Mic Network, Inc., 2018 WL 1801307, at *4. (S.D.N.Y. March 23, 2018).\n\n Applying these principles to the instant litigation, it is clear that Plaintiff cannot and has\n\nnot proven that Defendant\u2019s use of the Photo as a thumbnail image (which was not displayed or\n\nshown once during the actual video) was substantial enough to meet the required threshold in order\n\nto have an actionable copyright infringement claim within this Circuit or others. The Court\u2019s\n\nanalysis in Rudkowski v. Mic Network, Inc. makes it all the more clear that Defendant\u2019s use of the\n\nthumbnail photo in this matter is not actionable. Id. Even further, in Burgin v. National Football\n\nLeague, the court ruled that the defendant\u2019s usage of the copyrighted images in television shows\n\nand films did not count as copyright infringement, as the fact that the \u201cfinal inclusion of plaintiffs\n\ncopyrighted content is included as a rotating thumbnail image on the site\u2019s landing page\u2026\n\nillustrates that the copyright violation here is de minimus.\u201d Burgin v. National Football League,\n\n2014 WL 1760112, 13 CIV. 8166, *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 30, 2014).\n\n Furthermore, courts in the Southern District of New York have dismissed copyright\n\ninfringement claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where no substantial similarity was found, as is the\n\ncase here, due to Defendant\u2019s de minimis use of the thumbnail Photo of the original photo. In this\n\naction, there is no substantial similarity between the original Photo and Defendant\u2019s usage of it as\n\na thumbnail image, as the Photo was i) significantly minimized size-wise; ii) partially obscured by\n\nanother image; and iii) not displayed once in full-context in the video, but used as a mere\n\nthumbnail.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 23 of 25\n\n\n\n\n Thus, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint should be dismissed, as Defendant\u2019s use of the thumbnail\n\nPhoto was de minimis and therefore does not meet the substantial similarity threshold, which is\n\nrequired in order for Plaintiff to advance an actionable claim of copyright infringement.\n\n III. DEFENDANT\u2019S UTILIZATION OF THE PHOTO AS A THUMBNAIL IMAGE\n IS A NON-INFRINGING FAIR USE\n Courts within this circuit and other courts have ruled that a search engine\u2019s display of\n\nthumbnail images is non-infringing fair use, and therefore any copyright infringement claim\n\nagainst such usage must fail. See Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 229 (holding that \u201cGoogle's\n\nunauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and\n\ndisplay of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses\u201d); Perfect 10, Inc. v.\n\nAmazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that Google's display of thumbnail\n\nimages in search results is likely to be a fair use), & Lopez v. Big Commerce, Inc., 2017 WL\n\n3278932, 16-CV-8970, *4 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y. Aug 1. 2017)(\u201cHowever, because a search engine's\n\ndisplay of thumbnail images in search results is a non-infringing fair use, this theory of\n\ncopyright infringement fails.\u201d) Similarly in this instance, a search within the Facebook account of\n\nLaw&Crime demonstrates this thumbnail photo constituted non-infringing usage, as Facebook is\n\nan online platform that users must search through for content, (whether the search is for an\n\nindividual, a group, or news content) on which the Photo was utilized as a thumbnail image. See:\n\nHannley v. Mann, 2023 WL 3407183, 2:21-CV-02043-JLS (C.D. Ca. March 8, 2023)(Court ruled\n\nin favor of defendant after deeming thumbnail of a YouTube video was fair use) & Morris v. Wise,\n\n2020 WL 2475839, 1:19-CV-2467, *1 (N.D. Ohio May 13, 2020)(Dismissed federal copyright\n\ninfringement claim as \u201cthe allegedly infringing use was clearly transformative\u2026\u201d); regarding use\n\nof a copyrighted image on a video thumbnail published on the defendants\u2019 YouTube channel); &\n\nBill Graham Archives, LLC., 386 F.Supp.2d at 329: Ruling multiple contested thumbnail poster\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 24 of 25\n\n\n\n\nimages was fair use (\u201c\u2026 the significant reduction to thumbnail size of the images indicates an\n\nentirely different use of the image.\u201d). The precedent in both this circuit and others outline a clear\n\nline of precedent which enables Defendants to utilize thumbnail images of certain content,\n\nparticularly if it constitutes fair use and is for news reporting purposes, as is the case here.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s Complaint with prejudice, as Defendant\u2019s usage of the Photo (i) is fair use; (ii) is de\n\nminimis, and therefore does not meet the substantial similarity threshold; and (iii) courts have\n\nroutinely held that thumbnail images, particularly those found displayed within search engines, do\n\nnot constitute copyright infringement.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Elizabeth Vulaj\n Elizabeth Vulaj, Esq.\n LawNewz, Inc.\n Business & Legal Affairs\n 1261 Broadway, Sixth\n Floor New York, NY\n 10001 Telephone: (646)\n 370-1258\n Email:\n elizabeth@lawandcrime.co\n m\n Attorneys for Defendant\n LawNewz, Inc.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Andrew Eisbrouch\n Andrew Eisbrouch, Esq.\n LawNewz, Inc.\n Business & Legal Affairs\n 1261 Broadway, Sixth\n Floor New York, NY\n 10001 Telephone: (646)\n 370-1258\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 16 Filed 06/13/25 Page 25 of 25\n\n\n\n\n Email:\n andrewe@lawandcrime.co\n m\n Attorneys for Defendant\n LawNewz, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-11-05T12:37:45.272453-08:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037700043","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-13T14:07:15.720389-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.862181-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-13","time_filed":"16:48:41","entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":48,"description":"FIRST MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 15 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. . Document filed by LawNewz, Inc...(Vulaj, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/426822036/","id":426822036,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/441004232/","id":441004232,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/14/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-29T09:07:46.022630-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.788485-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037604492","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-29T09:07:46.005663-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.760798-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-29","time_filed":"11:13:58","entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":42,"description":"STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, that the time for Defendant LawNewz, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski's Complaint in the above-captioned action shall be further extended to and including June 13, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 13. SO ORDERED: Motions terminated: 13 SECOND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer . filed by LawNewz, Inc., (LawNewz, Inc. answer due 6/13/2025.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/28/25) (yv) (Entered: 05/29/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/426623737/","id":426623737,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/440798291/","id":440798291,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/13/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-27T15:55:41.507944-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.731138-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037592037","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-27T15:55:41.492253-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.704589-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-27","time_filed":"16:26:45","entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":40,"description":"SECOND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer . Document filed by LawNewz, Inc...(Vulaj, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/27/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425243772/","id":425243772,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439375306/","id":439375306,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/12/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-13T10:06:54.384586-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.679139-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037512450","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-13T10:06:54.371219-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.659430-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-13","time_filed":"12:54:22","entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":36,"description":"STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, that the time for Defendant LawNewz, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski's Complaint in the above-captioned action shall be extended to and including May 30, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 11. SO ORDERED. (LawNewz, Inc. answer due 5/30/2025., Motions terminated: 11 FIRST MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer . filed by LawNewz, Inc.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/13/25) (yv) (Entered: 05/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425171291/","id":425171291,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439300523/","id":439300523,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/11/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-12T15:10:25.510635-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.637207-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037506903","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T15:10:25.496593-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.615630-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-12","time_filed":"16:18:12","entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-12.003","pacer_sequence_number":34,"description":"FIRST MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer . Document filed by LawNewz, Inc...(Vulaj, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425144859/","id":425144859,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439273440/","id":439273440,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/9/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-12T13:10:42.062113-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.546054-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037505571","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T13:10:42.045013-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.523574-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-12","time_filed":"14:42:53","entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":28,"description":"NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joshua D. Vera on behalf of Christopher Sadowski..(Vera, Joshua) (Entered: 05/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425144737/","id":425144737,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439273318/","id":439273318,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/10/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-12T13:10:26.226821-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.588469-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037505995","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T13:10:26.210337-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.569584-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-12","time_filed":"15:14:49","entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-12.002","pacer_sequence_number":31,"description":"NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Elizabeth Vulaj on behalf of LawNewz, Inc...(Vulaj, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/423492609/","id":423492609,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/437556891/","id":437556891,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/8/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-04-25T08:12:17.892075-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.497369-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037404086","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Returned Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-25T08:12:17.880551-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.476262-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-25","time_filed":"09:09:14","entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":26,"description":"SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. LawNewz, Inc. served on 4/24/2025, answer due 5/15/2025. Service was accepted by Robin Hutt-Banks, Managing Agent. Document filed by Christopher Sadowski..(Sanders, Craig) (Entered: 04/25/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/422653836/","id":422653836,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436691416/","id":436691416,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.667501-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.673532-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Designated ECF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.659318-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.659326-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/422653835/","id":422653835,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436691415/","id":436691415,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.648705-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.654711-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Designation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.640229-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-17T05:49:48.640238-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/422143985/","id":422143985,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436163734/","id":436163734,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/7/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-04-11T12:10:06.404285-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.440263-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"7","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037324502","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order for Initial Pretrial Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-11T12:10:06.355558-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.419294-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-11","time_filed":"14:51:37","entry_number":7,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":24,"description":"NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, counsel for all parties shall appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on July 17, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The conference will be held remotely by telephone in accordance with Paragraph 3.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. The parties should join the conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference line at (855) 244-8681 and using access code 2303 019 3884, followed by the pound (#) key. When prompted for an attendee ID number, press the pound (#) key again. All counsel must also familiarize themselves with the Courts Individual Rules, which are available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. Absent leave of Court obtained by letter-motion filed before the conference, all pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel. Additionally, in accordance with Paragraph 3.D of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file on ECF a joint letter, described below, as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter, no later than Thursday of the week prior to the initial pretrial conference. The parties shall use this Court's form Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which is also available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. Any open legal issues can be addressed at the conference. The joint letter shall not exceed five (5) pages, and shall provide the following information in separate paragraphs as further set forth in this Order. Counsel who have entered a notice of appearance as of the issuance of this order are directed (1) to notify counsel for all other parties in this action who have not yet appeared by serving upon each of them a copy of this order and the Court's Individual Rules and Practices forthwith, and (2) to file proof of such notice with the Court. If unaware of the identity of counsel for any of the parties, counsel receiving this order must forthwith send a copy of this order and the Court's Individual Rules and Practices to that party personally. SO ORDERED. (Initial Conference set for 7/17/2025 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/11/25) (yv) (Entered: 04/11/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421965772/","id":421965772,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69864407/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435981153/","id":435981153,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69864407/5/sadowski-v-lawnewz-inc/","date_created":"2025-04-10T08:08:29.152561-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.344305-08:00","sha1":"fa621d75c1ef470843426f2edf2da3e90272fb8c","page_count":2,"file_size":213905,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.5.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221/gov.uscourts.nysd.640221.5.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 5 Filed 04/10/25 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\nAO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n for the\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n )\nChristopher Sadowski, )\n Plaintiff(s) )\n )\n v. ) Civil Action No.\n )\n )\nLawNewz, Inc., )\n Defendant(s) )\n\n SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION\n\n To: (Defendant's name and address)\n LawNewz, Inc.\n c/o Cogency Global Inc.\n 850 New Burton Road, Suite 201\n Dover, DE 19904\n\n A lawsuit has been filed against you.\n\n Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) \u2013 or\n60 days if you are the United States, or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United\nStates described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) \u2013 you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the\nattached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or\nmotion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are:\n CRAIG SANDERS\n SANDERS LAW GROUP\n 333 Earle Ovington Blvd, Suite 402\n Uniondale, NY 11553\n\n If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in\nthe complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.\n\n CLERK OF COURT\n\n\n 4/10/2025\n Date: ______________________ /s/ J. Gonzalez\n ________________________________________\n Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\n\f Case 1:25-cv-02917-JMF Document 5 Filed 04/10/25 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nAO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)\n\nCivil Action No.\n\n PROOF OF SERVICE\n (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))\n\n This Summons for (name of individual and title, if any) _____________________________________\nwas received by me on (date) ____________________.\n\n\n [ ] I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) __________________________\n ___________________________________________________ on (date) _______________; or\n [ ] I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) _______\n __________________________, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,\n on (date) ________________, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or\n [ ] I served the summons on (name of individual) ______________________________ , who is\n designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) ______________\n _____________________________________ on (date) ________________ ; or\n [ ] I returned the summons unexecuted because ________________________________ ; or\n [ ] Other (specify):\n\n\n\n\n My fees are $ ___________ for travel and $ ___________ for services, for a total of $ __ __ .\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.\n\n\n Date: ________________\n Server's signature\n\n\n Printed name and title\n\n\n\n\n Server's address\n\nAdditional information regarding attempted service, etc:\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-04-17T05:50:04.397350-07:00","document_number":"5","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127037311835","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Issued","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-10T08:08:29.141207-07:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T12:39:26.323386-08:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":"09:10:02","entry_number":5,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.004","pacer_sequence_number":20,"description":"ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to LawNewz, Inc...(jgo) (Entered: 04/10/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69864407&page_size=40"}