No.
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of tje SHntteb States
`
`SHIRLEY JN JOHNSON
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`NEW DESTINY CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH, INC.
`a/k/a Paula White Ministries
`a/k/a City of Destiny
`PAULA MICHELLE MINISTRIES, INC.,
`a/k/a Paula White Ministries
`PAULA MICHELLE WHITE
`a/k/a Paula Michelle Cain
`Respondents.
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`APPENDIX TO THE
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Shirley Jn Johnson, Pro se
`P.O. Box 58818
`Seattle, WA 98138
`(253) 846-6805
`Email: theremnantsjnj@yahoo.com
`
`

`

`1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Appendix A - (Court of Appeals’ unpublished
`opinion affirming the District Court’s deci­
`sion filed on May 20, 2019..............................
`Appendix B - (District Court’s order denying
`Petitioner’s Rule 52(b) motion to amend
`judgment filed on September 29, 2018.........
`Appendix C - (District Court’s memorandum
`opinion and order denying punitive dam­
`ages filed on July 31, 2018..............................
`Appendix D - (Petitioner’s Reply to Respond­
`ents’ Principal Brief filed 12/21/2018...........
`Appendix E - (New Destiny’s sworn answers
`to Petitioner’s First Request for Admis­
`sions Joint Exhibit 55......................................
`Appendix F - (Paula White’s sworn answers
`to Petitioner’s First Request for Admis­
`sions Joint Exhibit 63.....................................
`(Paula Michelle Ministries,
`Appendix G
`Inc.’s sworn Answers to Petitioner’s First
`Request for Admissions Joint Exhibit
`73
`Appendix H - (Paula White Ministries’ Copy­
`right Infringement Complaint filed March
`27, 2014..........................................................
`Appendix I - (Copyright infringement com­
`plaint from which Respondents copied ver­
`batim their false allegations filed Febru­
`ary 28, 2014.......................................................
`
`Page
`
`la
`
`10a
`
`13a
`
`35a
`
`69a
`
`77a
`
`83a
`
`89a
`
`99a
`
`

`

`11
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Appendix J - (Constitutional provisions,
`Statutes, Rules, Canons involved).............
`Appendix K: (Case law complete quotations)
`
`Page
`
`110a
`118a
`
`

`

`la
`APPENDIX A
`
`Case: 18-13940 Date Filed: 05/20/2019
`
`[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`No. 18-13940
`Non-Argument Calendar
`
`D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-01698-RBD-TBS
`
`SHIRLEY JOHNSON, individual,
`Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
`Versus
`
`NEW DESTINY CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH,
`INC., Florida not for profit corporation, a.k.a. Paula
`White Ministries, PAULA MICHELLE MINISTRIES,
`INC., Florida not for profit corporations, a.k.a. Paula
`White Ministries, PAULA MICHELLE WHITE, indi­
`vidually and in her official capacity as President, Di­
`rector and Senior Pastor of New Destiny Christian
`Center Church, Inc., and as Director and Incorporator
`of Paula Michelle Ministries, Inc., and as Director of
`Resurrection Life THC, Inc., a.k.a. Paula Michelle
`Cain,
`
`Defendants - Appellees,
`
`

`

`2a
`RESURRECTION LIFE THC, INC. Florida non-profit
`(not for profit) corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Florida
`
`(May 20, 2019)
`
`Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`Shirley Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals from
`the district court’s order declining to award her pun­
`itive damages following a bench trial in her successful
`action against New Destiny Christian Center Church,
`Inc. (“New Destiny”), Paula Michelle Ministries, Inc.
`(“PWM”), and Paula Michelle White. We affirm.
`I.
`In 2014, PWM sued Johnson for copyright infringe­
`ment. Johnson operates a YouTube channel. She uses
`that channel primarily to criticize White’s sermons at
`New Destiny, frequently posting video clips of those
`sermons, commenting on and critiquing them, and
`arguing that White misrepresents the true tenets of
`Christianity. White’s son, the manager of PWM’s
`online presence, consulted with PWM’s attorney to de­
`termine whether PWM had a viable copyright
`
`

`

`3a
`claim against Johnson based on her use of clips of
`White’s sermons. Counsel stated he believed there was
`a valid legal basis for a lawsuit, so PWM brought one.
`Defendants aver that after some time passed, counsel
`advised that the legal fees outweighed any benefit
`from the suit, and PWM voluntarily dismissed it.
`Johnson then brought this pro se malicious pro­
`secution diversity action under Florida law. Because
`of Defendants’ misconduct during discovery, the dis­
`trict court entered a default judgment against them on
`the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(vi). The action
`then proceeded to a bench trial on damages.
`Johnson sought non-economic damages and nomi­
`nal damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) and puni­
`tive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.73. In sup­
`port of her punitive damages claim, she alleged inten­
`tional malice in Defendants’ bringing the copyright
`infringement suit, asserting that White had person­
`ally attacked her in her sermons. But evidence on
`those sermons adduced at trial revealed that White
`never mentioned Johnson by name. In one sermon
`that Johnson contends is relevant, White said, “I in­
`tend to be a menace to you” and “I am in this battle,
`and I am going to win this battle.” White testified that
`“this battle” was against Satan as an “enemy to []
`God’s kingdom” and that she never directs her ser­
`mons at anything personal. Yet in another sermon,
`White asserted she was being persecuted and referred
`to a “legal situation.” White admitted that the only
`lawsuit in which she was a party was Johnson’s suit
`against her and that she could have been referring to
`Johnson. But she could not say with certainty
`that “legal situation” meant “lawsuit,” as there were
`other “legal situations” the church faced.
`
`

`

`4a
`After the bench trial, as stipulated by the parties,
`the district court awarded $1,207.93 in economic dam­
`ages incurred in defending the copyright infringement
`action. It also awarded $12,500.00 in damages for
`emotional distress resulting from that action.
`But the court refused to award punitive damages.
`Citing Florida law, the court explained that it needed
`to consider several items in light of the evidence pre­
`sented: the egregiousness of each defendant’s con­
`duct; the degree of harm; and each defendant’s net
`worth. The court concluded that although the copy­
`right infringement action may have been motivated in
`some part by ill will, there was still insufficient evi­
`dence to support a punitive damages award. In partic­
`ular, based partly on its credibility assessments,1 it
`found that PWM had a good-faith basis for relying on
`counsel in initiating the copyright infringement action
`and that PWM’s primary purpose in that action was to
`prevent infringement.
`
`II.
`She raises numerous
`Johnson timely appealed,
`These include, at least in her
`issues before us.
`
`1 White’s son had testified that several YouTube channels
`would be listed in the search results for “Paula White Ministries”
`or “Paula White,” even though those channels were not affiliated
`with PWM or White. He stated that it was “[v]ery important” to
`PWM that it “concentrate viewership” of its copyrighted material
`on its own YouTube channel, over which it had control. The dis­
`trict court credited this testimony, which was intended to show
`that PWM had a non-mahcious motive in protecting its copy­
`righted materials.
`
`

`

`5a
`statement of the issues,2 whether the district court
`erred in denying punitive damages; whether the dis­
`trict court erred in finding insufficient evidence of
`
`2 Later in her briefing, Johnson also raises other arguments
`that are without merit. First, she argues that “the district court
`erred in finding that a default judgment was punishment enough
`for [Defendants]” (capitalization removed). We suspect this point
`is another way of framing her request for punitive damages. If
`she means the argument literally, we still reject it. Johnson
`failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation of de­
`fault judgment, which the district court adopted. This Court’s
`rules bar Johnson’s argument on appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1
`(forbidding challenges on appeal to magistrate judge’s report and
`recommendation if party had the opportunity to object). To the
`extent Johnson refers to her request following the default judg­
`ment that the district court grant all the relief asked for in her
`complaint, the district court was not required to grant that re­
`quest. The scope of the discovery sanction was the district court’s
`choice. Indeed, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard in
`evaluating the district court’s decision to impose a default-
`judgment sanction under Rule 37. See Adolph Coors Co. v. Move­
`ment Against Racism & the Klan, 111 F.2d 1538, 1543—44 (11th
`Cir. 1985) (“On appeal we will . . . find an abuse of discretion if
`less draconian but equally effective sanctions were available.”).
`Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did
`not abuse its discretion in declining to award without a hearing
`the damages for which Johnson prayed in her complaint.
`Johnson also later contends that the district court was biased
`against her. We find no merit in this contention, which is simply
`a recasting of Johnson’s broader argument: that the district court
`made inferences from the facts with which Johnson disagrees.
`We note also that she never moved for the district judge to recu­
`se.
`
`Finally, Johnson appears to believe the district court erred in
`calculating her compensatory damages. We do not find this issue
`has been “plainly and prominently” raised, certainly here and
`perhaps even in the district court, and we therefore deem it aban­
`doned. See United States v. Jim, 891 F.3d 1242, 1252 (11th Cir.
`2018) (“Under our caselaw, a party seeking to raise a claim or
`
`

`

`6a
`malice; whether the district court erroneously allowed
`Defendants to use an advice-of-counsel “affirmative
`defense”;3 whether the district court erroneously al­
`lowed Defendants to “re-argue” the issue of fair use;
`and whether various agency law theories apply in this
`case. 4
`Notwithstanding Johnson’s framing of the issues,
`review convinces us that this appeal boils down to
`our
`one question: whether the district court erred in find­
`ing the evidence insufficient to support an award of
`punitive damages.
`
`issue on appeal must plainly and prominently so indicate. Other­
`wise, the issue—even if properly preserved at trial—will be con­
`sidered abandoned.” (quoting United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d
`1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003)), petition for cert, filed, (U.S. Jan.
`7, 2019) (No. 18-891).
`3 Johnson appears to suggest the default judgment nullified
`Defendants’ answer containing their advice-of-counsel affirma­
`tive defense, which means they should not have been able to use
`advice-of-counsel evidence. Yet “even a sanctioned defendant
`must be permitted to contest the nature and extent of its wrong­
`doing in the punitive-damages phase of the trial.” Belle Glade
`Chevrolet-Cadillac Buick Pontiac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Figgie, 54
`So. 3d 991, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The advice-of-counsel evi­
`dence was highly probative of the motive for pursuing the copy­
`right infringement suit.
`4 Johnson argues that PWM and New Destiny are vicariously
`liable for White’s actions. But that argument is irrelevant to the
`question of punitive damages. The district court did not deny
`punitive damages on the grounds that White’s actions could not
`be imputed to her companies but rather on the grounds that
`Johnson failed to show intentional misconduct or gross negli­
`gence as required for punitive damages under Florida law. Fur­
`ther, the district court directed the clerk to enter judgment
`for the compensatory damages jointly and severally against all
`the defendants—White, New Destiny, and PWM.
`
`

`

`7a
`“After a bench trial, we review a district court’s de­
`cision to award or deny punitive damages for abuse of
`discretion.” Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. u. Dolgencorp,
`LLC, 746 F.3d 1008, 1035 (11th Cir. 2014). “A district
`court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect le­
`gal standard, follows improper procedures in making
`the determination, or makes findings of fact that are
`clearly erroneous.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564
`F.3d 1256, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Klay v. Hu­
`mana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2004)).
`“When findings of fact are based on determinations
`about witnesses’ credibility, the deference accorded
`the trial judge is even more significant ‘for only the
`trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor
`and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s
`understanding of and belief in what is said.’” Johan­
`Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1335
`sen v.
`(11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Anderson u. City of Bessemer
`City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)).
`In a diversity case, we apply state substantive law
`to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of
`conduct warranting punitive damages. See Toole v.
`Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F. 3d 1307,1317 (11th
`Cir. 2000). Florida law provides that a “defendant may
`be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of
`fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds
`that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional
`misconduct or gross negligence.” Fla. Stat. § 768.72(2).
`‘“Intentional misconduct’ means that the defendant
`had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
`conduct and the high probability that injury or
`damage to the claimant would result and, despite that
`knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of con­
`duct, resulting in injury or damage.” Id. § 768.72(2)(a).
`
`

`

`8a
`“‘Gross negligence’ means that the defendant’s con­
`duct was so reckless or wanting in care that it consti­
`tuted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life,
`safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.”
`Id. § 768.72(2)(b). Given these exacting standards,
`even for torts where liability also “contain[s] . . . the
`elements of willfulness, a finding of liability for com­
`pensatory damages does not dictate an award of puni­
`tive damages.” Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v.
`Farish, 464 So. 2d 530, 533 (Fla. 1985).
`Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion
`in declining to award Johnson punitive damages. The
`district court correctly applied Florida law, and its fac­
`tual determinations were not clearly erroneous. The
`record supports Defendants’ contention, credited by
`the district court, that they relied on counsel to inves­
`tigate whether there was a reasonable, good-faith ba­
`sis to sue Johnson for copyright infringement. The rec­
`ord and the district court’s credibility determinations
`also demonstrate that the court did not clearly err in
`concluding that Defendants’ primary motive for the
`infringement suit was to protect their copyright. As
`for White’s sermons, they are at best tenuous evidence
`that White was upset with Johnson—certainly not
`enough to demonstrate “intentional misconduct or
`gross negligence” in deciding to bring the copyright
`infringement suit. Finally, although Johnson’s brief­
`ing regularly refers to Defendants’ misconduct during
`discovery, Defendants have already faced a serious
`sanction for that misconduct. Any liability for punitive
`damages turns on Defendants’ tortious conduct before,
`not during, this lawsuit. Cf Ault v. Lohr, 538 So. 2d
`454, 456 (Fla. 1898) (finding that, although it does not
`require a compensatory damages award, a punitive
`
`

`

`9a
`damages award requires a finding of liability for the
`underlying cause of action).
`Because the record and the district court’s credibil­
`ity determinations support the conclusion De­
`fendants filed the copyright infringement suit to pro­
`tect their copyright rather than out of malice against
`Johnson, the district court did not err in declining to
`award punitive damages.5 Accordingly, the district
`court’s rulings in all respects are
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`5 Johnson moved to amend the judgment under Rule 52(b) of
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending the district
`court overlooked or disregarded evidence that entitled her to pu­
`nitive damages. The district court denied that motion, finding
`Johnson was “simply unhappy with the result” and was imper­
`missibly attempting to relitigate a matter already decided.
`Johnson also appeals the district court’s order denying her mo­
`tion to amend. Having reviewed the motion, we conclude the dis­
`trict court’s characterization was correct: Johnson sought to call
`the court’s attention to evidence already presented and consid­
`ered. Rule 52(b)’s limited scope forecloses Johnson’s strategy. See
`Fontenot v. Mesa Petrol. Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir.
`1986) (“The purpose of [Rule 52(b) motions] is to correct manifest
`errors of law or fact or, in some limited situations, to present
`newly discovered evidence. It bears emphasizing that in a dis­
`trict court’s Rule 52(a) opinion memorandum of a decision follow­
`ing a bench trial, the court is “not obliged to recite and analyze
`individually each and every piece of evidence presented by the
`parties.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325,
`1353 (11th Cir. 2005). As we affirm the district court’s decision on
`the merits, we necessarily also affirm its ruling on Johnson’s
`Rule 52(b) motion.
`
`

`

`10a
`APPENDIX B
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01698-RBD-TBS
`Document 270 Filed 08/29/18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`SHIRLEY JN JOHNSON,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`6:15-cv-1698-Orl-37TBS
`
`NEW DESTINY CHRISTIAN
`CENTER CHURCH, INC.;
`PAULA MICHELLE MINIST­
`RIES, INC.; and PAULA
`MICHELLE WHITE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Plaintiffs Verified Rule 52(b)
`Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment. (Doc. 266
`(“Motion”).) Defendants responded. (Doc. 269.) On
`consideration, the Court denies the Motion.
`Plaintiff brought this action for malicious pro­
`secution against Defendants on October 8, 2015 seek­
`ing, among other relief, punitive damages. (Doc. 1.)
`Following the entry of default judgment against De­
`fendants (Doc. 183), this case proceeded to a two-day
`bench trial on the issue of Plaintiff s damages (see
`
`

`

`11a
`Doc. 192, 248, 249, 256, 257). The Court then issued a
`memorandum opinion and order outlining its findings.
`(Doc. 264 (“Order”).) The Order found that Plaintiff
`was entitled to costs and non-economic damages total­
`ing $13,707.93; but found that Plaintiff was not enti­
`tled to punitive damages. (Id. at 15—17.) Plaintiff now
`moves the Court to amend the Order to find her enti­
`tled to punitive damages. (Doc. 266, pp. 1—2.) She con­
`tends the Court “overlooked or disregarded material
`evidence and testimony, and failed to give detailed
`findings on some of Plaintiffs evidence, which, if con­
`sidered, would produce a different outcome.” (Id. at 2.)
`Defendants oppose (Doc. 269), so the matter is ripe.
`A Rule 52 motion for the court to or amend its find­
`ings is not intended to allow parties to relitigate old
`issues, advance new theories, or rehear the merits of a
`case. Fontenot u. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207,
`1219 (5th Cir. 1986). Rather, the “purpose” of Rule 52
`motions “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or,
`in some limited situations, to present newly discov­
`ered evidence.” Id. Furthermore, in a Rule 52(a) mem­
`orandum opinion, a district court is “not obliged to re­
`cite and analyze individually each and every piece of
`evidence presented by the parties.” Holton v. City of
`Thomasville Sell. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1353 (11th Cir.
`2005).
`Here, Plaintiffs Motion claims the Court over­
`looked or disregarded evidence she submitted that
`clearly indicates malice and entitles her to punitive
`damages. (Doc. 266, pp. 2-17.) Yet the Court com­
`prehensively considered all the evidence submitted
`and found that Plaintiff was not entitled to punitive
`damages. (See Doc. 264, p.l (“Having considered
`the pleadings, evidence, argument, and relevant legal
`
`

`

`12a
`authority, and having made determinations on the
`credibility of the witnesses, the Court hereby renders
`its decision on the merits of this case pursuant to Fed­
`eral Rule of Civil Procedure 52.”); see also Doc. 264,
`pp. 1-19.) Plaintiff is simply unhappy with the result,
`so brought this Motion to re-litigate old issues. Such is
`not grounds to alter or correct the judgment under
`Rule 52, see Fontenot, 791 F.2d at 1207, so the Motion
`is due to be denied.
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
`that Plaintiff Shirley Jn Johnson’s Verified Rule 52(b)
`Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment. (Doc. 266)
`is DENIED.
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando,
`Florida, on August 29, 2018.
`
`•'ROY B. DALTON JFV
`United States District Judge
`
`Copies to:
`Counsel of Record
`Pro Se Party
`
`

`

`13a
`APPENDIX C
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01698-RBD-TBS
`Document 264 Filed 07/31/18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`SHIRLEY JN JOHNSON,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`, 6:15-cv-1698-Orl-37GJK
`
`NEW DESTINY CHRISTIAN
`CENTER CHURCH, INC.;
`PAULA MICHELLE MINISTRIES,
`INC.; and PAULA MICHELLE
`WHITE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`This cause is before the Court following a two-day
`bench trial. (See Docs. 248, 249, 256, 257.) Having con­
`sidered the pleadings, evidence, argument, and rele­
`vant legal authority, and having made determina­
`tions on the credibility of the witnesses, the Court
`hereby renders its decision on the merits of this case
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.
`
`

`

`14a
`I. BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff Shirley Jn Johnson (“Johnson”) initiated
`this action against Defendants for, inter alia, mali­
`cious prosecution under Florida law related to a 2013
`copyright infringement suit filed against Johnson by
`Paula White Ministries. (See Doc. 1); see also Paula
`White Ministries v. Shirley Jn Johnson, 6:14-cv-497-
`GAP-DAB (Mar. 27, 2014), Doc. 1 (“Copyright In­
`fringement Action”). Following contentious discov-
`the Court entered default judgment against
`ery,
`Johnson’s malicious prosecution
`Defendants on
`claims. (See Doc. 183.) The matter then proceeded to
`trial for Johnson’s damages. (See Doc. 192.).
`II. JURISDICTION
`The Court has diversity jurisdiction over this mat­
`ter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are
`diverse, and the Court previously accepted Johnson’s
`assertion that the amount-in-controversy exceeds
`$75,000. (See Doc. 131, pp. 12-16.)
`III. FINDINGS OF FACT
`A. Agreed Findings of Fact1
`1. Plaintiff operates the YouTube channel “the­
`remnantsjnj.”
`2. Plaintiff is the registered owner of the You­
`Tube channel “theremnantsjnj.”
`3. Plaintiff is responsible for the content on the
`YouTube channel “theremnantsjnj.”
`4. Plaintiff started her YouTube channel on
`November 1, 2011
`
`1 The parties stipulated to these facts, as provided by their Joint
`Pre-Trial Statement. (See Doc. 222, pp. 12—13.)
`
`

`

`15a
`5. Plaintiff created the website http://www.-
`theremnantsjnj .com/.
`6. Plaintiffs website was “built and ready for
`public consumption” on September 11, 2011.
`7. Paula White Ministries sent an initial take­
`down notification to YouTube on February 2,
`2012.
`8. On February 6, 2012, YouTube sent Paula
`White Ministries and Plaintiff a notification
`that certain content was removed.
`9. On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a coun­
`ter-notification with YouTube requesting her
`content be reinstated.
`10. Plaintiffs YouTube channel was restored on
`May 14, 2012.
`11. Mr. Sadaka sent Plaintiff a Cease & Desist
`letter on October 7, 2013.
`12. The Copyright Infringement Action was filed
`by attorneys of the NeJame Law Firm on be­
`half of Paula White Ministries (d/b/a of Paula
`Michelle Ministries, Inc.) on March 27, 2014.
`13. YouTube removed certain content on Plain­
`tiffs YouTube channel as a result of another
`notification by Paula White Ministries on
`May 2, 2014.
`14. Plaintiff filed a counter-notification with You­
`Tube requesting her content be reinstated on
`May 14, 2014.
`15. Paula White Ministries notified YouTube
`that the Copyright Infringement Action was
`filed on May 15, 2014.
`16. YouTube declined Plaintiffs request to
`
`

`

`16a
`reinstate content as Copyright Infringement
`Action was pending on June 4, 2014.
`17. The Copyright Infringement Action was dis­
`missed on January 22, 2015.
`18. Plaintiffs YouTube channel was restored on
`February 10, 2015.
`19. This Malicious Prosecution Action was filed
`on October 8, 2015.
`20. Plaintiffs economic damages are limited to
`monetary damages that she sustained as re­
`sult of defending against the underlying
`copyright action. These damages total $1,207.93.
`21. Plaintiff has no other economic damages re­
`lated to her defense of the underlying copy­
`right action, but Plaintiff also seeks her
`costs of prosecuting this suit.
`22. Plaintiff has not suffered any monetary loss
`as a result of her YouTube channel being
`taken down. However, Plaintiff contends she
`sustained economic damages in getting her
`YouTube channel restored. Plaintiff is not
`seeking to recover such damages in this
`action, but is seeking those damages in a
`separate action, styled Shirley Jn Johnson v.
`New Destiny Christian Center Church, Inc.
`et al, 6:17-cv-710-Orl-37GJK.
`23. Plaintiffs claim for mental pain and anguish
`involves the “garden variety” emotional
`injuries she sustained during the underlying
`copyright action, which concluded on
`January 22, 2015.
`24. Plaintiff has recovered from her past mental
`
`

`

`17a
`and emotional injuries.
`25. Plaintiff did not seek psychological or psych­
`iatric treatment for injuries, nor was she
`examined, diagnosed or treated for a
`specific mental/psychiatric disorder or in­
`jury as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
`26. Defendant White has not specifically refer­
`red to Plaintiff by name in any of the ser­
`mons or videos Plaintiff has produced in
`this action or intends to utilize at trial.
`B. Court’s Additional Findings of Fact2
`i. Initiation of copyright infringement action
`1. Paula White-Cain (“White”) is Senior
`Pastor at New Destiny Christian Cen­
`ter. She preaches sermons to her con­
`gregation, which she personally crafts
`and writes. (Doc. 256, p. 44:1—19.)
`Her sermons are recorded, and she
`sometimes uses parables or discusses
`her personal life when preaching.
`2. Beyond preaching, White is the presi­
`dent of New Destiny Christian Cen­
`ter. (Id. at 109:3-6.) She delegates
`various responsibilities to others in­
`volved in her organization, including
`day-to-day operations, day-to-day
`management, and working with
`
`2 The following facts have been established by a
`preponderance of credible evidence. To the extent that
`any of these facts may represent conclusions of law,
`the Court adopts them as such.
`
`

`

`18a
`attorneys. {Id. at 107;6—15.) White’s Son,
`Brad Knight (“Knight”), served as Opera­
`tions Manager of the Paula White Minis­
`tries (“PWM”), and is now employed on a
`contract basis with New Destiny Chris­
`tian Center. {Id. at 108:11—18! Doc. 257,
`p. 8:5-18.) Knight handles issues involv­
`ing YouTube and the online presentation
`and distribution of White’s sermons. {See
`Doc. 257, pp. 10-12.)
`Between 2012 and 2015, Knight was re­
`sponsible for growing PWM’s internet
`program, which included placing ads on
`videos of White’s sermons. {Id. at 12-15.)
`Part of this process included sending
`YouTube takedown notices for videos be-
`lieved to be violating the Digital Millen-
`Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by “re-
`nium
`uploading [PWM’s] content or using
`[PWM’s] content.” {Id. at 6:2-5.) To that
`end, Knight and another employee would
`search YouTube for White and PWM to
`“see what videos were using [their] con­
`tent.” {Id. at 17:6-11.) In doing this,
`Knight discovered Johnson’s page, which
`had high video counts on videos that in­
`cluded clips from White’s sermons. {Id. at
`17:12-17.) Johnson was then sent a
`DMCA takedown notice by PWM. {Id.
`atl6:l3-15.) In response, Johnson filed a
`counter-notification and her videos were
`restored. {Id. at 16—18.)
`About a year and a half later, Knight
`consulted with attorney Tom Sadaka
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`

`

`19a
`about Johnson’s videos to see if PWM had
`a valid basis for a copyright infringe­
`ment claim against Johnson. (Id. at 21:3
`-18.) Knight was the “only person that
`dealt directly with [Sadaka]” concerning
`Johnson’s suit. (Id. at 22:22—25.) On re-
`Sadaka affirmed that PWM “had a
`view
`reasonable basis for a lawsuit.” (Id. at
`22:10-12.) PWM’s “primary intention
`was the removal of [Johnson’s] videos
`and the concentration of [its] platform on
`YouTube.” (Id. at 22:15-17; see also id. at
`23:1-14.) Knight acted based on his un­
`derstanding that Johnson was using
`PWM’s content. (Id. at 25:5—17.) Knight
`believed that Johnson’s videos did not
`constitute “fair use,” based on his own
`understanding and based on the advice of
`Sadaka that there was a reasonable basis
`for the claim. (Id. at 29-30.) Ultimately,
`as the lawsuit progressed, Knight decid­
`ed that the costs of litigation and legal
`fees outweighed the benefits of continu­
`ing suit to receive income from YouTube.
`(Id. at26-27.) So he suggested to Sadaka
`that they drop the suit. (Id. at 27:7—15;
`also id. at 28.) The Copyright In­
`see
`fringement Action was ultimately dis­
`missed by PWM. (Id. at 38.) The Court
`finds Knight’s testimony credible.
`White’s involvement in the Copyright In­
`fringement Action was limited. (See id. at
`27:16-22.) On being told by her son that
`a lawsuit against Johnson was “the only
`
`5.
`
`

`

`ii.
`
`20a
`way we could pursue what we wanted to
`do with YouTube,” White “gave [Knight]
`the authority to do what [he] thought
`was best, and [he] proceeded.” (Id/, see
`also id. at 37-38.) The Court accepts
`Knight’s testimony that White had min­
`imal involvement in the Copyright In­
`fringement Action, but that he sought
`her authorization before initiating suit.
`This action
`6. After the Copyright Infringement Action
`was dismissed, Johnson initiated this ac­
`tion for malicious prosecution against
`Defendants. (Doc. 1.) She claims White and
`Defendants had “malice and evil motive” in
`instigating the Copyright Infringement Ac­
`tion, and sought to injure her personally.
`(See id. 1ft 38, 56, 59.) Johnson believes
`that White knew about her videos and
`used her sermons to personally attack her,
`though White did not mention her by
`even
`(See id. tt 59-65.) At trial, Johnson
`name.
`offered several clips from sermons as sup­
`port. (PL Exs. 9D-9G.)
`7. One of Johnson’s clips came from White’s
`sermon on May 1, 2016, where White dis­
`cussed loving people despite personal is­
`sues you might face with them. (PI. Ex.
`9G.) White focused on John 13:34—35,
`which says, “A new commandment I give
`unto you, That ye love another; as I have
`loved you, that ye also love another. By
`this shall all men know that ye are my
`
`

`

`21a
`disciples, if ye have love to one anoth­
`er.” (Id.;.)
`8. At some point in the sermon, White gave
`examples of personal strife she’s faced
`and people who she’s had difficulties
`with. (Defs. Ex. B-79; see also PI. Ex. 9G.)
`She used these examples to show that it’s
`not easy to love such people, but because
`God commands it, it must be done. (Defs.
`Ex. B-79; PI. Ex. 9G.)
`9. Excerpted, she preached:
`I see great things happen. Then, that
`means, Rachel, that I’m going to have to
`really learn how to love, because love is
`not just something that comes so natur­
`ally to all of us. I mean, we’ve been hurt.
`Am I the only person that’s ever been
`hurt in life? Am I the only person that’s
`ever been offended in life? Am I the only
`person that’s ever wanted to knock some­
`one out in a New York second in life? Am
`I only person that wanted to say, you are
`saying this about me but let me tell
`about your—am I the only person that
`wanted to hire a detective, get some
`stuff, put it out and publish it and
`start a blog? Now I know, see, uh, please
`don’t get into the dirty side of my mind—
`am I the only person that ever wanted to
`be ruthless and —ok, praise the Lord —
`wanted somebody who was saved but not
`sanctified come after you in Jesus’ name?
`But He says, Paula that’s not my
`
`

`

`22a
`disciple. You will know—you will, you
`will love, you will know that you’re a dis­
`ciple by the love you have for one an­
`other. Not just in your tribe, Paula. Not
`just at New Destiny Christian Center.
`Not just within your denomination. Not
`just within your—your personality
`frame. But within— in every single per­
`son who is a born-again believer. You
`know how many people say you can’t
`preach cuz you’re a woman? . . . You will
`know—this is the new command —Paula
`are you my disciple? Do you still love? Do
`you want me to start calling out names? .
`. . Do you love all the people that put the
`junk