Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Salna
VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC
CLEAR SKIES NEVADA, LLC
COBBLER NEVADA, LLC
FATHERS & DAUGHTERS NEVADA, LLC
GLACIER ENTERTAINMENT S.A.R.L. OF LUXEMBOURG
GLACIER FILMS 1, LLC
PTG NEVADA, LLC
Robert Salna
Law Firm / Organization
Lipman Zener Waxman LLP
James Rose
Law Firm / Organization
Lipman Zener Waxman LLP
Loredana Cerilli
Law Firm / Organization
Lipman Zener Waxman LLP

- Parties: The applicants were Voltage Pictures, LLC, Cobbler Nevada, LLC, PTG Nevada, LLC, Clear Skies Nevada, LLC, Glacier Entertainment S.A.R.L. Of Luxembourg, Glacier Films 1, LLC, and Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC. The respondents were Robert Salna, James Rose, and Loredana Cerilli (the proposed representative respondents on behalf of a class of respondents). The interveners were Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, Videotron Ltd., Bell Canada, Cogeco Connexion Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Sasktel, Telus Communications Inc., and Xplore Inc.

- Subject Matter: The applicants – which were motion picture production companies forming a part of the Voltage film studio – sought to certify a class proceeding against approximately 874 unknown class members whose internet protocol addresses were allegedly used to upload and to download films produced by Voltage without authorization and who thus allegedly infringed Voltage’s copyright in the films.

- Ruling: The court ruled in the respondents’ favour and dismissed the applicants’ motion for certification of the proposed class proceeding with leave to amend. The court said that the proposed class proceeding could not be certified at this time, given deficiencies in the litigation plan.

- Date: The hearing was set on Apr. 20, 2023. The court released its decision on June 26, 2023.

- Venue: This was a federal case before the Federal Court.

- Amount: The court released to the applicants the $75,000 posted as security for costs, less payment of costs to the respondent Robert Salna in the all-inclusive lump sum amount of $50,710.

Federal Court
T-662-16
Intellectual property
$ 50,710
Respondent
26 April 2016