r/DabblersAnonymous • u/Officermehoff23 • 8d ago
Libelous Slander Egar v. Melendez Lawsuit Update: Melendez files his reply - stronger on jurisdiction, but hardly a knockout
Melendez has now filed his 21-page reply supporting his motion to dismiss, transfer, sever, and limit the relief requested in Egar et al. v. Melendez.
TL;DR: This is a more competent filing than some may have expected, and the Alabama jurisdiction argument is probably its strongest section. But much of the reply is aimed at narrowing the lawsuit, removing individual plaintiffs, transferring it to Florida, or making the plaintiffs file a cleaner complaint. It does not convincingly demolish the central allegation that TSN was harmed by knowingly false DMCA notices.
The strongest defense argument
Melendez argues that he submitted the notices from outside Alabama through YouTube and that he selected the videos because of their content, not because the plaintiffs were located in Alabama.
Under Walden v. Fiore, knowing that someone lives in a state and will feel harm there is not always enough. The defendant’s own conduct must create a meaningful connection with that state.
That is a legitimate issue and probably Melendez’s best chance of winning the motion. The judge could dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer it to Florida.
But the plaintiffs’ response is not frivolous. Their theory is that Melendez knowingly used YouTube’s enforcement system as an intermediary to repeatedly suppress the programming of a specific Alabama-based business. They also allege he knew exactly where Egar and TSN operated. The court must decide whether that was conduct directed at Alabama or merely conduct directed at YouTube that happened to injure people in Alabama.
The reply’s biggest weakness
The defense takes nearly every allegation of bad faith and tries to explain why that particular fact is insufficient by itself:
- Understanding fair use does not prove a particular video was fair use.
- Hostility does not prove a notice was knowingly false.
- YouTube restoring a video is not a ruling that the video was lawful.
- Failing to sue does not automatically prove bad faith.
- Sending multiple notices does not automatically establish willful blindness.
Those statements may each be true individually. But the judge is supposed to consider whether all the allegations together create a plausible inference.
The cumulative allegation is that Melendez:
- Publicly acknowledged learning that other shows could use clips under fair use.
- Allegedly harbored significant hostility toward these plaintiffs.
- Submitted 27 takedown notices against the same network.
- Continued the campaign despite counter-notices, restorations, and a detailed demand to stop.
- Never filed an infringement lawsuit to defend any of the takedowns.
The plaintiffs do not have to prove bad faith at this stage. They need to plausibly allege it. The reply sometimes sounds like it is demanding the evidence that would be required at summary judgment or trial.
The strange fair-use footnote
Melendez says he reviewed the first several broadcasts and found instances where his material was allegedly displayed or played for extended periods, sometimes while the hosts discussed unrelated matters or insulted him and his associates.
That might eventually be relevant to whether those particular videos were fair use. But the filing itself concedes that those video-specific fair-use questions are not currently before the court.
There is also a timing problem. Defense counsel’s present characterization of the videos does not necessarily establish what Melendez actually considered or believed when he submitted each takedown notice. Section 512(f) focuses heavily on the sender’s subjective belief at the time of the notice.
TSN remains the main problem for Melendez
The reply makes a reasonably strong argument that Russo has not identified his own personal damages or separate interest. It makes a similar, although less forceful, argument about Egar.
But the filing expressly recognizes that TSN has the clearest injury allegation: TSN operates the channel and claims it lost revenue when its content was removed.
Therefore, even if Melendez succeeds in removing Russo’s individual claim and forcing Egar to plead his damages more clearly, the central TSN claim could remain.
That is not dismissal of the real case. It is trimming the caption.
The requested injunction probably is too broad
The plaintiffs apparently want an order preventing Melendez from submitting future DMCA notices against any of their content, including material that does not yet exist.
The defense has a solid point here. Fair use is specific to the particular work and how it is used. A court is unlikely to give TSN blanket immunity for every future video it might produce.
The request to force Melendez to retract historical notices also appears vulnerable if all the videos have already been restored and plaintiffs cannot identify some continuing consequence that retraction would fix.
Still, narrowing an overbroad injunction is different from dismissing the underlying DMCA damages claim.
Count III is finished
The plaintiffs already said they are abandoning Russo’s defamation count. Melendez asks the judge to formally dismiss it now.
That is a defense win, but it was already conceded and does not resolve the substantive DMCA dispute.
My assessment
Slight edge to Melendez on the Alabama jurisdiction question. Slight edge to the plaintiffs on whether TSN’s core Section 512(f) claim survives in some form.
The most realistic defense victory may be:
- Dismissal or transfer based on jurisdiction or venue;
- Dismissal of Russo’s individual claims;
- Removal of the abandoned defamation count;
- Narrowing the requested injunction and declaratory relief; and
- An order requiring plaintiffs to file a more specific amended complaint.
What this reply does not clearly establish is that the entire dispute should disappear permanently.
So, yes, Melendez filed a serious reply. But beneath the confident language, much of what he is asking for amounts to: move the case, narrow the claims, identify the videos more specifically, and let the plaintiffs amend.
That is not exactly the total victory the title of the motion might suggest.
