Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Telah Response

    Uploaded by

    Kenan Farrell
    330 views4 pages
    This document is the plaintiff's response to defendant Havel's motion for a preliminary injunction in a civil case. The plaintiff argues that the defendant has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction or that he has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claims. Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant's claims of potential harm and misunderstanding of copyright law do not warrant an injunction. The plaintiff offers to delay filing new intellectual property registrations until the case concludes if the court maintains existing scheduling deadlines.

    Original Description:

    Telah Response

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is the plaintiff's response to defendant Havel's motion for a preliminary injunction in a civil case. The plaintiff argues that the defendant has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction or that he has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claims. Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant's claims of potential harm and misunderstanding of copyright law do not warrant an injunction. The plaintiff offers to delay filing new intellectual property registrations until the case concludes if the court maintains existing scheduling deadlines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    330 views4 pages

    Telah Response

    Uploaded by

    Kenan Farrell
    This document is the plaintiff's response to defendant Havel's motion for a preliminary injunction in a civil case. The plaintiff argues that the defendant has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction or that he has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claims. Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant's claims of potential harm and misunderstanding of copyright law do not warrant an injunction. The plaintiff offers to delay filing new intellectual property registrations until the case concludes if the court maintains existing scheduling deadlines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 1 of 4

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
    SOUTH BEND DIVISION

    The Evolutionary Level Above Human


    Foundation d/b/a The Telah Foundation,
    Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-00395
    Plaintiff,
    v.

    Stephen Robert Havel,


    Cathy JoAnn Weaver,
    Jason Bartel,

    Defendants.

    PLAINTIFF’S REPSONSE TO DEFENDANT HAVEL’S MOTION FOR A


    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    The Evolutionary Level Above Human Foundation d/b/a The Telah Foundation
    (the “Foundation” or “Plaintiff”) by and through their attorneys, hereby submits its
    response to Defendant Stephen Havel’s (“Defendant Havel”) Motion for Preliminary
    Injunction and the brief in support thereof. (“Motion”) [DE 179; DE 180].
    Defendant Havel falls well short of meeting the required showing for a
    preliminary injunction. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must first show “that:
    (1) absent preliminary injunctive relief, [the party] will suffer irreparable harm in the
    interim prior to a final resolution; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) [the
    party] has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” Turnell v. CentiMark Corp.,
    796 F.3d 656, 661–62 (7th Cir. 2015).
    In terms of irreparable harm, Defendant Havel seems to indicate that he will have
    to “spend even dozens to hundreds of more hours to defend himself and to prepare for
    trial and the loss of thousands of dollars more in lost income and expenses related to this

    {07848384 / 2}

    1
    USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 2 of 4

    lawsuit” because Plaintiff has added copyrights to the case. [DE 180 at 3]. However,
    Plaintiff has not added any copyrights to this case, nor can Defendant Havel point to any
    pleadings showing as much. Plaintiff’s act of simply seeking copyright registrations for
    works that are not involved in this case has no impact on Defendant Havel vis-à-vis the
    issues of this case. Accordingly, any potential harm suffered by Defendant Havel
    (Plaintiff maintains that there is absolutely no harm) is unrelated to this case and is
    improperly raised as part of this litigation.
    Regarding Defendant Havel’s reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, once
    his conjecture and misreading of the law is disregarded, it is evident that Defendant
    Havel’s arguments regarding Plaintiff’s ownership rights to the Heaven’s Gate
    intellectual property are not grounded in reality. [Id. at 8–14]. Plaintiff has repeatedly
    refuted Defendants’ arguments regarding ownership and have shown that its ownership
    rights cannot be relitigated pursuant to principles of res judicata. [See DE 81 at 2–7]. Yet,
    Defendants continue to seek overbroad discovery related to previously litigated cases and
    continue to assert that they have a reasonable likelihood of success, all premised on their
    misunderstanding of the relevant law. [See DE 180 at 3–4]. Simply put, Defendant Havel
    has completely failed to show that he will be successful on the merits of his arguments.
    Further, Defendant Havel’s Motion appears to be premised on his misconstruing
    existing records at the U.S. Copyright Office. For example, the Copyright Office
    inadvertently omitted a portion of Plaintiff’s name in its most recent registration. This
    omission was brought to the Copyright Office’s attention and has since been corrected.
    Yet, according to Defendant Havel, this is an example of Plaintiff “trying to hide behind
    the corporate veil” by removing the word ‘Level’ from its name. [DE 180 at 6]. Again,
    once Defendant Havel’s conjecture is removed, there is nothing really left.
    Despite the above, Plaintiff would agree to delay applying for any new copyright
    or trademark registrations until this lawsuit is resolved, provided that there are no
    {07848384 / 2}

    2
    USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 3 of 4

    extensions to the existing Scheduling Order. Plaintiff would agree to the above in the
    spirit of cooperation and in an effort to arrive at a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
    determination” of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. By agreeing to delay its intellectual
    property filings, Plaintiff in no way waives any of its rights or defenses.
    CONCLUSION
    If the Court keeps the existing Scheduling Order [DE 117], then Plaintiff will
    agree to delay applying for any new copyright or trademark registrations until this lawsuit
    is resolved, thereby mooting Defendant Havel’s request for entry of a preliminary
    injunction. Should the Court grant Defendants request to extend the discovery deadlines,
    then Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant Havel’s Motion be denied for failing to
    meet the required showing for injunctive relief.

    DATED this 4th day of December 2023.

    MESSNER REEVES, LLP

    By: /s/ Otto E. Hinks


    MESSNER REEVES LLP
    Isaac S. Crum (AZ Bar #026510) (Pro
    Hac Vice)
    [email protected]
    Otto E. Hinks (AZ Bar #032457) (Pro
    Hac Vice)
    [email protected]
    Attorneys for Plaintiff

    {07848384 / 2}

    3
    USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 4 of 4

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that on the 4th of December 2023, I electronically filed the
    foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
    notification of the filing to the parties listed below. A copy of this filing will also be
    sent via U.S. mail and email.

    Cathy Weaver Jason Bartel


    5776 Grape Road, Ste 51 N4051 26th Lane
    PMB #121 Redgranite, WI 54970-7087
    Mishawaka, IN 46545 [email protected]
    [email protected]

    Steven Robert Havel


    5776 Grape Road, Ste 51
    PMB #121
    Mishawaka, IN 46545
    [email protected]

    By: /s/ Amber Gunsolley


    Amber Gunsolley

    {07848384 / 2}

    You might also like