A pair of late afternoon orders on Monday by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi may have shed some light as to the surprise settlement agreement filed by the sides in the on-going dispute between Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova and Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault as the judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non-conveniens and their motion to require plaintiff to post bond.
The long-standing dispute by the two YouTubers over Hudon-Huneault’s alleged misuse of Cordova’s copyrighted works and Hudon-Huneault’s counter claims that he had been verbally licensed to use the material has dominated headlines for most of the past nine months.
It came to an apparent end late Sunday night as both sides came to a tentative agreement on dismissal and asked Judge DeMarchi to put aside pending rules, due dates and requirements of the party while they negotiated the settlement.
DeMarchi’s order on Hudon-Huneault’s request to dismiss the lawsuit in the United States for it to be refiled in Canada or to require Cordova to put up a significant bond to continue the case came as a surprise as they came after the request by both parties to essentially stop all activity in the lawsuit.
Links to the full PDFs of both orders can be found and read for free in the description of this news report, on our Discord server and on Merb’s Discord server.
In dismissing the forum non-conveniens claim, Judge DeMarchi wrote:
Turning to the second private interest factor, the forum’s convenience to the litigants, defendants do not explain how litigating in Canada, a foreign forum, would be more convenient than litigating in California for Mr. Cordova. Indeed, defendants assert in support of their alternative bond motion that Mr. Cordova has “limited financial means,” which suggests that litigating in a foreign country is likely to be more burdensome for Mr. Cordova than litigating in the United States. See Dkt. No. 91 at 11. Defendants’ principal contention is that dismissal is warranted because defendant Ohiri is pregnant and it would be “a significant inconvenience for both parents [Ms. Ohiri and Mr. Huneault] to travel to California for a trial with an infant.”5 Id. at 8. The Court recognizes that “litigation is generally an inconvenience for people,” and that it may be especially inconvenient for those with caretaking obligations. See Future Roots, Inc. v. YEAR0001 AB, No. 23-cv-6825-GW-ASX, 2024 WL 5466470, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2024) (holding that defendant’s argument that he has a “months-old child in his care” and that his traveling to California “would greatly affect [his] child’s life and daily routines” did not weigh in favor of dismissal for forum non conveniens). However, there is no need for individual parties to travel to the Northern District of California for any court proceedings other than for trial, and as for trial, defendants are welcome to seek reasonable accommodations to address their parenting obligations at the appropriate time. This factor weighs against dismissal.
and:
With respect to the sixth factor, defendants contend that a judgment of this Court would not be enforceable in Canada, and that “such a judgment . . . would necessarily need to be re-litigated in some fashion in Ontario, with possibly further appeals, before the judgment can be recognized.” Dkt. No. 91 at 8. While defendants are correct that the United States is not a party to any treaty expressly providing for the recognition or enforcement of U.S. judgments in foreign countries, see Dennis Hranitzky, International Execution Against Judgment Debtors § 79:3 (Apr. 2026 Update), they cite no legal authority or expert testimony in support of their argument that burdensome “re-litigation” of Mr. Cordova’s claims in Canada would be necessary in order to enforce a judgment rendered in this District. To the contrary, at least one secondary source describes Canada as “one of the easiest countries in which to obtain recognition and enforcement of a U.S. judgment.” David Wemhoff, The Enforcement of Foreign Country Money Judgments: An Overview, 70 Fed. Law. 42, 47 (Summer 2023). Other courts that have addressed this question have found that “[j]udgments rendered by United States District Courts and Canadian courts are enforceable in both countries.” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Andrade, No. 20-cv-02360-BLF, 2021 WL 3514103, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021) (citing cases); cf. Great Bowery, 812 F. Supp. 3d at 361 (relying on Canadian law expert declaration for the proposition that “any judgment obtained here is not automatically enforceable against [defendant] in Canada because [plaintiff] would first need to have that judgment ‘homologated,’ that is, recognized by a Canadian court.”). Accordingly, this factor is neutral.
The final consideration is a catchall factor: “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” The Court has presided over this case for more than ten months during which time it has addressed several motions to dismiss or strike, conducted an initial case management conference with the parties, and entered a scheduling order. Defendants’ belated request for dismissal, if granted, would require Mr. Cordova to initiate an entirely new action in a different forum. It is difficult to see how such an outcome would promote the “easy, expeditious and inexpensive” resolution of this dispute.
She concluded:
In sum, defendants have not carried their burden of “making ‘a clear showing of facts which establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion to plaintiff’s convenience.’” Boston Telecomms. Grp., 588 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Ravelo Monegro, 211 F.3d at 514). Defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is denied.
In denying the motion to require Cordova to post bond, she wrote:
Defendants argue that the Court should require Mr. Cordova to post a bond because Mr. Cordova resides in Colorado, not California. Dkt. No. 91 at 10-19. They assert that Mr. Cordova “is extremely mobile and could move from state-to-state (or to another country) to avoid any judgment of this Court,” and that he “has no means to pay the costs and attorneys[’] fees” they might obtain if they prevail against him in this action. Id. at 11. Defendants argue further that they “have strong defenses that have ‘reasonable possibility’ of prevailing.” Id. at 19-20. Mr. Cordova responds that defendants have not demonstrated a reasonable possibility of prevailing, nor have they otherwise shown good cause for an order requiring him to post a bond. Dkt. No. 100 at 15-24.
Setting aside that defendants are not California residents, and therefore are not within the category of defendants that § 1030 was apparently intended to protect, defendants have not met their burden of showing that they have a reasonable possibility of prevailing in this action and obtaining an award of fees and costs. The Court mostly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint, and granted (with leave to amend) Mr. Cordova’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, many of which mirror their defenses to Mr. Cordova’s claims. See Dkt. Nos. 65, 112. To the extent defendants emphasize the merits of their fair use defense to Mr. Cordova’s claims, see Dkt. No. 91 at 16-17, the Court agrees that this defense is non-frivolous. However, it is defendants’ burden to establish a reasonable possibility of prevailing on this defense. On the record presented, and for the reasons discussed in detail in the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Cordova’s second claim for relief, the Court cannot conclude that defendants have a reasonable possibility of prevailing on this defense at this time. See Dkt. No. 65 at 8. None of defendants’ arguments regarding the merits of their other defenses are persuasive.8
Because defendants have not shown a reasonable possibility of prevailing in this action and obtaining an award of fees and costs at this time, the Court need not consider the Simulnet balancing factors—i.e., the reasonable extent of the security to be posted, if any, viewed from each side’s perspective. See Ismart Int’l Ltd. v. I-Docsecure, LLC, No. 04-cv-03114 RMW, 2005 WL 588607, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2005) (denying motion for bond where defendants failed to establish that they would prevail in obtaining a judgment); see also BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 15-cv-01370-EJD, 2018 WL 1989530, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) (“toll-booths cannot be placed across the courthouse doors in a haphazard fashion to deprive legitimate plaintiffs from access to federal courts” (citation modified) (quoting Simulnet, 37 F.3d at 576)).
As defendants have not demonstrated that they meet the requirements for an order to post a bond, and have not otherwise shown good cause for such a bond, the Court denies the alternative motion.
Judge DeMarchi’s second order states:
The parties advise that they have reached a settlement in principle. Dkt. No. 116. The Court continues defendants’ deadline to file an amended counterclaim to June 8, 2026. All other pretrial and trial dates remain as set in the Case Management Order. See Dkt. No. 41. The Court has not set a deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for attorneys’ fees, so there is no deadline to extend.
On or before June 4, 2026, the parties shall file a stipulated dismissal of the entire action pursuant to Rule 41. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. If a dismissal is not filed by that date, then the parties shall appear in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113 on June 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. and show cause, if any, why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a). In advance of the show cause hearing, the parties shall file a statement no later than June 9, 2026 advising as to (1) the status of their efforts to resolve the matter; and (2) how much additional time, if any, is requested to file a dismissal. The parties’ status report shall not disclose the substance of any settlement discussions. If a dismissal is filed as ordered, the Order to Show Cause hearing will be automatically vacated and the parties need not file a statement in response to this Order.
The Court hereby terminates the parties’ March 30, 2026 discovery dispute letter, without prejudice. Dkt. No. 105.
This is a breaking news story.
