Monsarrat v. Zaiger (17-cv-10356).

Jonathan Monsarrat filed suit in March 2017, alleging copyright infringement through Zaiger 2019s use of a photograph of Monsarrat that had been altered to suggest Monsarrat was a pedophile. The original claim was dismissed (twice)as time barred, as the complaint made clear that Monsarrat knew about the posting of the photograph as early as 2012. The proposed amended complaint sought to add defamation claims resulting from a republishing of the photograph along with a report that Monsarrat had been arrested for serving underage teens alcohol during a party at his apartment. Monsarrat alleged that this posting caused a potential investor in his video game company to withdraw. Unfortunately for Monsarrat, while no charges were ultimately filed, he actually had been arrested for serving alcohol minors, meaning that the statement was true. While a true statement can serve as the basis for a defamation claim if actual malice can be proven, if the maker of the statement subjectively believed the statement to be true, no claim can be had. Here, the story of Monsarrat 2019s arrest was published in the Boston Globe, providing reason for Zaiger to believe the story (which, of course, was technically true). Because of this, and because the proposed amended pleading did not resolve the statute of limitations issue, Magistrate Judge Bowler recommended that Monsarrat 2019s motion to amend his pleading be denied as futile. Judge Bowler granted Monsarrat 2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Zaiger 2019s counterclaim for misrepresentation of a copyright claim under 17 U.S.C. 00a7 512(f). Zaiger 2019s counsel had previously withdrawn in light of Zaiger 2019s non-responsiveness to communications; Zaiger had since failed to show for a hearing or respond to an order to show cause why judgment on the pleadings should not be granted, which demonstrated a disregard of the court and the litigation.