G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Baaset

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC's motion to strike affirmative defenses in an unauthorized-broadcast lawsuit. The court strikes the unclean-hands defense and strikes the failure-to-mitigate defense to the extent it relies on preventing the injury before it occurred. The court allows the failure-to-mitigate defense to proceed insofar as defendants allege that G&G could have reduced its losses after the broadcast began.

Holdings

1. The unclean-hands defense was properly stricken because Defendants did not allege inequitable conduct sufficiently egregious to bar G & G from asserting its claims.
2. A failure-to-mitigate defense cannot be based solely on the plaintiff’s ability to prevent the injury before it occurred.
3. The failure-to-mitigate defense was not stricken in its entirety because Defendants plausibly alleged that G & G might have reduced some losses after the broadcast began and before it ended.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants’ unclean-hands affirmative defense should be stricken because the alleged conduct did not constitute inequitable conduct sufficient to bar G & G’s claims.
2. Whether Defendants’ failure-to-mitigate affirmative defense should be stricken insofar as it was based on G & G’s ability to prevent the injury before the broadcast began.
3. Whether the failure-to-mitigate defense could proceed insofar as G & G may have reduced its losses after the broadcast began but before it ended.

Disposition

other