`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO:1: 22-cv-24195-FAM
`
`
`
`PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC. f/k/a
`ADLIFE MARKETING &
`COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ORIGINAL BIG TOMATO, LLC and
`MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a
`SLICE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`________________________________________/
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT, ORIGINAL BIG TOMATO, LLC’S,
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`
`Defendant, ORIGINAL BIG TOMATO, LLC (“OBT” or “Defendant”), respectfully
`
`answers the Complaint of Plaintiff, Prepared Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife Marketing &
`
`Communications Co., Inc., as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Paragraph 1 is admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
`
`Paragraph 2 is admitted.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the information set forth in Paragraph 3,
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Paragraph 4 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 5 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`M#23-00582
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`FACTS
`
`8.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`9.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`10.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`11.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`12.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`II. The Work At Issue In This Lawsuit.
`
`13.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`14.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`15.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15,
`
`therefore it is denied.
`
`III. Defendant’s Unlawful Activities.
`
`16.
`
`OBT only operates one location in Pinecrest, Florida. As such, the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 16 are denied.
`
`M#23-00582
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`17.
`
`OBT admits that it does own and/or manage the website and social media pages
`
`referenced in Paragraph 17, but has not updated its website in years, posted on Facebook since
`
`2019, or posted on Instagram since 2020. As such, the remainder of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 17 are denied.
`
`18.
`
`OBT admits that Slice allows pizzeria’s like OBT to advertise its services for
`
`purchase and delivery, similar to the services offered by platforms like Uber Eats or Door Dash.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`19.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`20.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`21.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`22.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`23.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`24.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 24,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`25.
`
`Paragraph 25 is denied.
`
`26.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`M#23-00582
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`27.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27,
`
`therefore, they are denied.
`
`Count I – Copyright Infringement
`
`(Slice)
`
`28.
`
`OBT integrates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 27 above as though they are
`
`set forth fully herein.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`OBT denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29.
`
`OBT denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`32.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`33.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`34.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Paragraph 35 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 36 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`38.
`
`Paragraph 38 is denied.
`
`39.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`M#23-00582
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`40.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`41.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Paragraph 42 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 43 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 44 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 45 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Count II – Copyright Infringement
`
`(Original Big Tomato)
`
`46.
`
`OBT integrates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 27 above as though they are
`
`set forth fully herein.
`
`47.
`
`Paragraph 47 is denied.
`
`48.
`
`OBT is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48,
`
`therefore, it is denied.
`
`49.
`
`Paragraph 49 is denied.
`
`50.
`
`Paragraph 50 is denied.
`
`51.
`
`Paragraph 51 is denied.
`
`52.
`
`Paragraph 52 is denied.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Paragraph 53 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 54 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`55.
`
`Paragraph 55 is denied.
`
`56.
`
`Paragraph 56 is denied.
`
`M#23-00582
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`57.
`
`Paragraph 57 is denied.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`Paragraph 58 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 59 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 60 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Paragraph 61 calls for a legal conclusion, therefore, it is denied.
`
`Any allegations not specifically admitted above in Paragraphs 1 through 61 are denied.
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUEST
`
`OBT requests a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1st Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`2nd Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff has sustained no harm, irreparable or otherwise, due to any action by Defendant.
`
`3rd Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff’s claims fail for the work’s lack of copyrightability.
`
`4th Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff’s demand related to its licensing fee is not the fair market value of the Work.
`
`5th Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff’s claims fail because the work at issue is based solely on an expression that
`
`flows from an idea.
`
`6th Affirmative Defense
`
`Plaintiff’s claims fail because, to the extent that OBT infringed, its use was de minimus.
`
`7th Affirmative Defense
`
`6
`
`M#23-00582
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-24195-FAM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`To the extent that OBT is found to have infringed on Plaintiff’s works, such infringement
`
`was not willful, and was unintentional.
`
`8th Affirmative Defense
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff’s works are found to be copyrightable, it’s claims are barred
`
`by the doctrine of laches.
`
`9th Affirmative Defense
`
`OBT is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act because Plaintiff’s claims are
`
`objectively unreasonable.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 15, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing document
`
`with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will electronically serve all counsels of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _/s/ Michelle K. Suarez, Esq._
`Michelle K. Suarez, Esq.
`Florida Bar No.: 104826
`Counsel for Original Big Tomato, LLC.
`FLORIDA ENTREPRENEUR LAW, P.A.
`101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Direct: (954) 882-4119
`Office: (954) 800-0484
`Email: MSuarez@FloridaEntrepreneurLaw.com
`Email: Eservice@FloridaEntrepreneurLaw.com
`Email : Aprila@FloridaEntrepreneurLaw.com
`
`
`M#23-00582
`
`7
`
`