TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459 - Ethan Klein Suing three women and 10 redditors for Copyright Infringement.

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber 2:25-cv-05564 — District Court, C.D. California

  • Docket No.
    2:25-cv-05564
  • Court
    District Court, C.D. California
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Both
  • Last Filing
    9 Cze 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
Does, Alexandra Marwa Saber, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 45)

# Date Description Filing
44 9 Cze 2026 STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S MARCH 2, 2026 ORDER [DKT. NO. 29] filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc.. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 06/10/2026) PDF
43 5 Cze 2026 COMPACT DISC Order for date of proceedings 06/05/2026 to 06/05/2026 filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc.. Court will contact Rom Bar-Nissim at Rom@HeahBarNissim.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre-Trial Proceeding: Hearing for Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings on June 5, 2026. FEE PAID. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 06/06/2026) PDF
42 4 Cze 2026 MINUTES OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO COMPLAINT 35 Hearing held before Judge Wesley L. Hsu. The Court's Tentative Ruling was issued on June 4, 2026, and reviewed by counsel. The Court heard oral argument. The Court took the matter UNDER SUBMISSION and a ruling will be issued. Court Recorder: CourtSmart. (lom) (Entered: 06/05/2026) PDF
41 2 Cze 2026 SCHEDULING NOTICE AND (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CHANGING THE TIME OF THE MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Complaint 35 scheduled for 6/05/2026 by Judge Wesley L. Hsu: The Court, on its own motion, changes the time to 2:15 PM. The hearing will proceed in-person at the First Street Courthouse, Courtroom 9B. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cgm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/03/2026)
2 Cze 2026  

Ted Entertainment Inc. v. Morgan Kamal Majed 2:25-cv-05565 — District Court, C.D. California

  • Docket No.
    2:25-cv-05565
  • Court
    District Court, C.D. California
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Plaintiff
  • Last Filing
    19 Maj 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
Does, Ted Entertainment Inc., Morgan Kamal Majed

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 16)

# Date Description Filing
16 19 Maj 2026 DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to Morgan Kamal Majed p/k/a Frogan. (iv) (Entered: 05/20/2026) PDF
15 18 Maj 2026 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against defendant Morgan Kamal Majed filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit) (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 05/19/2026) 1 2 3
14 4 Sie 2025 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION RE: EXTEND ING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 13 by Judge John F. Walter. Frogan's deadline to respond to TEI's complaint extended to October 3, 2025. (iv) (Entered: 08/06/2025) PDF
13 4 Sie 2025 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to October 3, 2025 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 08/05/2025) 1 2
12 17 Lip 2025 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc., upon Defendant Morgan Kamal Majed served on 7/14/2025, answer due 8/4/2025. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jane Doe - Member of Household in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 07/18/2025) PDF

Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Caviness 4:25-cv-00459 — District Court, W.D. Missouri

  • Docket No.
    4:25-cv-00459
  • Court
    District Court, W.D. Missouri
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:101 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Both
  • Last Filing
    7 Gru 2025

Parties (3)

Parties
Does 1-10, Kacey Caviness, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 36)

# Date Description Filing
27 7 Gru 2025 ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Kacey Caviness p/k/a Kaceytron only. In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case, provided that such motion is filed within 45 days of the date of this Order. In addition, the Court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreed to by the parties. Signed on 12/8/25 by District Judge Brian C Wimes. (TLD) (Entered: 12/08/2025) PDF
26 1 Gru 2025 STIPULATION of dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Kacey Caviness p/k/a Kaceytron by Ted Entertainment, Inc.. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 12/02/2025) PDF
25 7 Paź 2025 DESIGNATION OF NEUTRAL by Kacey Caviness, Does 1-10. (Kassis, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/08/2025) PDF
24 5 Paź 2025 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed on 10/6/25 by District Judge Brian C Wimes. (TLD) (Entered: 10/06/2025) PDF
23 1 Paź 2025 Joint MOTION for protective order for Approval of Proposed Protective Order filed by Benjamin Kassis on behalf of Kacey Caviness. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/16/2025 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Kassis, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/02/2025) PDF

In re. Subpoenas to Reddit, Inc. and Ddiscord, Inc. 3:25-mc-80296 — District Court, N.D. California

  • Docket No.
    3:25-mc-80296
  • Court
    District Court, N.D. California
  • Filed
    21 Wrz 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    890 Other Statutory Actions
  • Cause
    Civil Miscellaneous Case
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    3 Cze 2026

Parties (2)

Parties
Doe Defendants, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 60)

# Date Description Filing
48 1 Cze 2026 USCA Case Number 26-3553 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for 46 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed by Doe Defendants. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2026) Modified on 6/3/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2026) PDF
47 31 Maj 2026 USCA Case Number 26-3513 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for 49 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed by Doe Defendants. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2026) Modified on 6/3/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2026) PDF
49 28 Maj 2026 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus filed Directly with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2026) Modified on 6/4/2026 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2026) PDF
46 28 Maj 2026 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Doe Defendants. Appeal of Order, Terminate Motions 45 (Appeal fee of $605 receipt number ACANDC-22041800 paid.) (Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 5/29/2026) (Entered: 05/29/2026) PDF
45 28 Kwi 2026 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS. Signed by Judge Sallie Kim on 4/29/2026. (bxl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2026) (Entered: 04/29/2026) 1 2

Doe Defendants v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco 26-3513 — Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  • Docket No.
    26-3513
  • Court
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Filed
    31 Maj 2026
  • Last Filing
    21 Cze 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, DOE DEFENDANTS

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 9)

# Date Description Filing
9 21 Cze 2026 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld [Entered: 06/22/2026 02:10 PM]
8 21 Cze 2026 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld for Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Entered: 06/22/2026 01:26 PM]
7 14 Cze 2026 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Real Party in Interest Ted Entertainment, Inc.. [Entered: 06/15/2026 03:03 PM] PDF
6 3 Cze 2026 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Court entered filing to correct DE 5] [Entered: 06/04/2026 03:28 PM] PDF
5 3 Cze 2026 DEFECTIVE---STATUS REPORT filed by Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Wrong filing type, corrected in DE 6] [Entered: 06/04/2026 03:09 PM] [Edited: 06/04/2026 03:29 PM]
Ian decided to go ahead and apologize.
What he also does is admit to several things:
1) He displayed the message intentionally to hurt Ethan
2) He picked this specific message because of its impact
3) He is mad at Ethan and that is why he did it
4) He knew that this would severely hurt Ethan and Hila but it is justified because (((Jew bad)))
5) He did this because Ethan sued Denims, Frogan and Kaceytron

Bold strategy.
Maybe Ethan is merciful.

EDIT: Apparently he is, a comment on the video from the verified h3h3 account says Ethan will drop the lawsuit.
Who would have though avoiding live ruination could be this simple. Frogan in shambles.

 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Ian decided to go ahead and apologize.
Honestly, it's a good video. Ian looks more human here than I've seen in a while. He certainly still reserves some things to himself on justification, but the totality is a real-ass apology.

Also, this is absolutely not a hostage-like pre-written settlement statement. I think H3 dropping the lawsuit here is more of a "I get it man, okay, let's move on" thing than a prenegotiated endeavor.

Ian says "at the end of the day whatever happens with the lawsuit is what it is". So I think he really is just coming out here and trying to take the high ground. And I gotta hand it to him over that. Good on ya Ian.
 
Honestly, it's a good video. Ian looks more human here than I've seen in a while. He certainly still reserves some things to himself on justification, but the totality is a real-ass apology.

Also, this is absolutely not a hostage-like pre-written settlement statement. I think H3 dropping the lawsuit here is more of a "I get it man, okay, let's move on" thing than a prenegotiated endeavor.

Ian says "at the end of the day whatever happens with the lawsuit is what it is". So I think he really is just coming out here and trying to take the high ground. And I gotta hand it to him over that. Good on ya Ian.
He is lucky that Ethan is straight up with his intentions.
He wanted the apology, and he wants people to stop harassing his family.

At the end of the day I do not think there is anything for Ethan to take from them, any he was not in it for the money anyway.
 
Like said story over for dubs lawsuit back to women

Screenshot_20260615_131339_X.jpg Screenshot_20260615_131930_X.jpg
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
So today marks two weeks since the court in the Denims case issued its tentative ruling. The court and parties had their hearing two fridays ago.

1781798975478.png

The current matter is under submission as of June 5th. And I think I'm a tad bit surprised we haven't seen the Judge issue a final ruling yet. I assumed it would happen within a week or two, but with tomorrow being a federal holiday (Juneteenth, even in a Trump administration), that looks increasingly unlikely.

The primary reason I can think of for a delay is that Rom actually raised a few points at the hearing that the court felt it would need time to address to bolster the Court's ruling for an appeal. There *is* the much more remote chance that the judge is reconsidering the ruling entirely, but I think that is highly unlikely, as it would be common for a court to request additional briefing from the parties on a narrow issue if the judge was second guessing himself -- both to buy time and to get the parties to clearly state their positions.

But who knows. This is tea leaf reading at its finest. Could just as easily be the judge decided to go watch the Knicks or something and lost track of this case. However I will say the longer we wait the more I think Rom may have done something moderately convincing at the hearing/arguments.
 
So today marks two weeks since the court in the Denims case issued its tentative ruling. The court and parties had their hearing two fridays ago.
I even checked the court website to see if the judge hat put something else out on the case, but there has been nothing after Rom requested the transcripts and notified the court of the Doe appeal of the subpoena.

I was fully prepared for the judge to just file his opinion and ruling shortly after the hearing.
 
I even checked the court website to see if the judge hat put something else out on the case, but there has been nothing after Rom requested the transcripts and notified the court of the Doe appeal of the subpoena.

I was fully prepared for the judge to just file his opinion and ruling shortly after the hearing.
My absolute best guess is the Denims judge is taking the time to address the Mods/Does-related failed subpoena quash.

He agreed to take judicial notice of it (in a footnote) but (i think?) did not otherwise engage with it.

He is probably trying to dispose of it, even though the Mods have not moved (i think?) in the Denims case (nor Frogan case or Kaceytron case for that matter) for dismissal.

There's the weird procedural and operational reality that the court seems to want to rule in Denims favor on Denims's motion, which wouldn't necessarily extinguish Ethans claims against the mods automatically (the mods haven't moved to dismiss the claims against them) while at the same time another court granted the subpoena for the mods info (currently being appealed) based on Ethans claims against the mods via the underlying Denims case.

It is all messy. My best guess is this judge wants to try to clean it up. And will *hereby rule under the all writs act* (the judicial admin code to do whatever they want) ex parte extinguish Ethan's claims against the Mods (in the Denims case) and vacate the justification for the Mods subpoena that is the basis for the appeal/etc.
 
I stumbled over this by accident. Sadly it is an hour long, and even in this format Frogan is insufferable, but I found it interesting to see a video about her from a less biased perspective.
tl;dr: Ethan is not getting ANY money out of this bitch. (I really do not get what her life plan is, find a job maybe?)

 
I stumbled over this by accident. Sadly it is an hour long, and even in this format Frogan is insufferable, but I found it interesting to see a video about her from a less biased perspective.
tl;dr: Ethan is not getting ANY money out of this bitch. (I really do not get what her life plan is, find a job maybe?)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=i1U0oHKMzfA
All I really got out of it is that she's boring as fuck, really stupid for trying to be a streamer as a career, and her mom is fuckin mean. Like, yeah her mom was telling her to stop streaming, and that's good, but saying the hair dye made frogan look ugly was just mean.

I hope Ethan makes her live with her parents.
 
but saying the hair dye made frogan look ugly was just mean
If you had this thing brainwashed by the Californian education system as your daughter you would also tell her that.
Like, I fully expect there to be a long history of Frogan being a dumb cunt, living large on her parent's money, being forced to get any kind of degree, only to not even work in the field.

Mean or not, as a parent financing her fat lifestyle I'd say she has every right to say whatever the fuck she wants to the fat blob.

And yes, Frogan appears to be very boring. (and disgusting)
 
The judge seems to be on vacation (??) but it is still odd that we don't see this case in the tentative ruling tab anymore (it used to be there, with other, older rulings too) 1000138933.png
Any federal circuit nerd knows what this means? 🤔
 
Any federal circuit nerd knows what this means? 🤔
I wouldnt read too much into it. Probably just a clerk clearing out old entries. It's not some formal system as far as I am aware.

I am surprised a final (non-tentative) ruling still has not been entered. But it could be due to a vacation, which you note.
 
Jordan Peterson is a flawed man, but he clocked the fuck out of Ethan when he rejected sanity to adopt leftist craziness. I do wonder if post-oct 7 Ethan ever reflects on this.
that was jordan before he gained braindamage in russia. ethan has actually commented on this tweet after the whole shit show with hasan began. he said something like this "yeah im aware of jordans comments. people saying its prophetic. its not. I don't think he has any point with that tweet. its just mumbo jumbo *proceeds to make kermit the frog noises*"
 
One unintentionally hilarious outcome of this ruling is that if the judge set the precedent that just mumbling "yeah um okay" while watching a video is transformative content, even if you explicitly said you're doing it to deprive the maker of revenue- Hardin could easily spring this case on No Dong Fong. If this is not copyright infringement, there's no way that editing a photo into a meme is.
 
One unintentionally hilarious outcome of this ruling is that if the judge set the precedent that just mumbling "yeah um okay" while watching a video is transformative content, even if you explicitly said you're doing it to deprive the maker of revenue- Hardin could easily spring this case on No Dong Fong. If this is not copyright infringement, there's no way that editing a photo into a meme is.
Not really. The ruling explains that the reaction was substantive. It also explicitly says that the nature of the reaction was a factor, meaning that it wasn't just 'pauses for the sake of pauses' or reactions that didn't add to the content. So, if you just said "so, how was your weekend guys" or similar small talk that isn't related to the content of the video, that is much less likely to qualify for fair use. It's also why Denim's reaction was the strongest legally speaking, it wasn't some xQc type watch party.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole