UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

------------------------------------------------------------------ x 

Gary Miller, d/b/a enature.net, : 

 

Plaintiff, : 07-CV-5713 

 (MGC) 

-against- : ECF CASE 

 

Pavel Ushakov and Center Studios, LLC., : 

 

 Defendants. : 

------------------------------------------------------------------ x 

 COMES NOW Defendants Pavel Ushakov, an individual, and Center Studios LLC 

(incorrectly named herein as Center Studios, LLC.), an Ohio limited liability company (collectively 

referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, and allege as their Answer, on 

information and belief, the following: 

1. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny the 

allegations set forth by Plaintiff in Paragraph 1 and therefore deny them. 

2. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 2 in the form 

alleged, except admit that Defendant Pavel Ushakov is a resident of the State of Ohio and 

Defendant Center Studios LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of 

Ohio. 

3. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 3 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

4. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 4 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

5. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 5 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

DEFENDANTS PAVEL 

USHAKOV’S AND CENTER 

STUDIOS LLC’S ANSWER

Case 1:07-cv-05713-MGC Document 6 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 5
2 

6. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 6 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

7. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny the 

allegations set forth by Plaintiff in Paragraph 7 and therefore deny them. 

8. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 8 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

9. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny the 

allegations set forth by Plaintiff in Paragraph 9 and therefore deny them. 

10. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny the 

allegations set forth by Plaintiff in Paragraph 10 and therefore deny them. 

11. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 11 in the form 

alleged, and leave all questions of fact to the trier of fact and all questions of law to the Court. 

12. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 12 in the form 

alleged, except admit that at some point in time the image was displayed on Defendants’ website(s). 

13. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 13. 

14. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 14 in the form 

alleged, except admit that at some point in time the video clips were displayed on Defendants’ 

website(s). 

15. Defendants admit the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 15. 

16. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 16 in the form 

alleged, except admit that Plaintiff licensed Defendants to post all three video clips. 

17. Defendants admit the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 17. 

18. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 18. 

19. Defendants deny the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 19. 

Case 1:07-cv-05713-MGC Document 6 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 2 of 5
3 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense 

20. This Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. 

Second Affirmative Defense

21. The Southern District of New York is an improper venue for this action. 

Third Affirmative Defense

22. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense

23. Plaintiff’s causes of action fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Fifth Affirmative Defense 

24. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense 

25. Plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to and/or caused the injuries of which he now 

complains, and Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of his own conduct. 

Seventh Affirmative Defense 

26. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by Plaintiff’s own conduct of waiver and 

estoppel. 

Eighth Affirmative Defense

27. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the doctrine of laches. 

Ninth Affirmative Defense 

28. No act or omission of or attributable to the Defendants was a substantial factor in 

bringing about the occurrences alleged in the Complaint or any damage or loss sustained by 

Plaintiff, nor was any act or omission of, or attributable to, the Defendants, a contributing cause 

thereof, and any alleged acts or omissions of, or attributable to, the Defendants were superseded by 

Case 1:07-cv-05713-MGC Document 6 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 3 of 5
4 

the acts or omissions of Plaintiff or of other persons, which acts or omissions of Plaintiff and of 

other persons were the independent, intervening and proximate causes of the occurrences alleged in 

the Complaint. 

Tenth Affirmative Defense

29. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event 

discovery, investigation, or analysis indicates that they are proper. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Defendant moves for the dismissal of this matter, for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper and just. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants hereby demand a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38(b) of The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Dated: August 21, 2007 

 Glen Allen, Virginia Respectfully submitted: 

 DOZIER INTERNET LAW, P.C. 

 

By: /s/ Donald E. Morris, Esq. _ 

 Donald E. Morris, Esq. (DM-9138) 

 DOZIER INTERNET LAW, P.C. 

 301 Concourse Blvd. 

 West Shore III, Suite 300 

 Glen Allen, VA 23059 

 Phone (804) 346-9770 ex. 307 

 Fax (804) 346-0800 

 Email: don@cybertriallawyer.com 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 Center Studios LLC and Pavel Ushakov 

 

Case 1:07-cv-05713-MGC Document 6 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 4 of 5
5 

Certificate of Service 

 I hereby certify that on August 21, 2007, I electronically transmitted Defendants’ Answer to 

the Complaint to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

Eugene B. Nathanson 

305 Broadway 

Suite 200 

New York, NY 10007 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

/s/ Donald E. Morris, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-05713-MGC Document 6 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 5 of 5