Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1376

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL FITZGERALD, and )

WORLD WISDOM, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB
)
MAUDE MURRAY, and )
BEACON BOOKS AND MEDIA, LTD, )
)
Defendants. )

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Maude Murray, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65 by Plaintiffs Michael Fitzgerald ("Fitzgerald") and World Wisdom, Inc. ("World

Wisdom") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") (Filing No. 19). After engaging in various other legal

disputes with Defendant Maude Murray ("Murray"), the Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit to protect

their copyrighted works from infringement by Murray and co-defendant Beacon Books and Media,

LTD ("Beacon Books") (collectively, "Defendants") (Filing No. 1). The Plaintiffs' action seeks

damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief concerning their copyrighted works. They

filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin Murray from distributing,

marketing, and advertising her book that infringes on the copyrighted works. Also pending is

Murray's Motion to Expedite Case in which she requests expedited action in the case. (Filing No.

55.) For the following reasons, the Court grants Murray's request to expedite a ruling and grants

Fitzgerald's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 1377

I. BACKGROUND

Fitzgerald, an individual residing in Bloomington, Indiana, is a lifelong resident of Indiana.

World Wisdom is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Bloomington,

Indiana. Murray is an individual currently residing in Pakistan. Beacon Books is a private limited

company located in Sale, England (Filing No. 1 at 2).

Fitzgerald was the executor of the estate of Frithjof Schuon ("Schuon"), a world-renowned

philosopher and author, who died in 1998. Schuon was a resident of Indiana from 1980 until his

death in 1998. His wife, Catherine Schuon, was a resident of Indiana from 1980 until her death in

2021. Fitzgerald was also the executor of the estate of Catherine Schuon. Fitzgerald was a close

friend to Schuon and Catherine Schuon. Murray was an Indiana resident from 1980 through 2001.

Murray was a close friend of Schuon and Catherine Schuon until 1992 when Murray became

estranged from Schuon and Catherine Schuon following her divorce from her then-husband (Filing

No. 20-2 at 2; Filing No. 1 at 2–3).

Fitzgerald has presented evidence that from the years 1992 through 1995, Murray made

increasingly aggressive attempts to communicate with Schuon, including through threatening

letters sent to Schuon and others. These attempts to communicate with Schuon culminated in

Murray appearing at the home of Schuon and Catherine Schuon in Bloomington, Indiana, in April

1995. Murray stated that her intention was to starve herself to death. She was removed by police.

Catherine Schuon then obtained a protective order against Murray for herself and Schuon;

however, Murray repeatedly violated the protective order. A warrant was issued for Murray's

arrest, and she was incarcerated. Murray then took to the courts, and in the span of approximately

six weeks, she filed four separate lawsuits against Schuon, his close friends, and family, including

Catherine Schuon and Fitzgerald. One of these lawsuits was filed in Monroe County, Indiana,

2
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 1378

against Schuon for defamation of character. Two of the lawsuits were dismissed, but the

defamation action and one other lawsuit remained pending. In consideration for the dismissal of

the pending lawsuits and the pending criminal case against her, Murray entered into a settlement

agreement with Schuon, Catherine Schuon, and Fitzgerald in 1995, in which she agreed that she

would not disseminate any information in any medium about Schuon, Catherine Schuon, and

Fitzgerald (Filing No. 20-2 at 3–4; Filing No. 1 at 3–4).

After Schuon's death in 1998, Catherine Schuon inherited Schuon's rights of publicity and

various copyright interests in Schuon's works. In 2003, Catherine Schuon assigned her interest in

Schuon's rights of publicity and her copyright interests in Schuon's works to World Wisdom.

Catherine Schuon also inherited Schuon's rights under the settlement agreement upon his death.

In March 2021, Catherine Schuon assigned all her rights and Schuon's rights under the settlement

agreement to the Plaintiffs. In January 2021, Catherine Schuon transferred all her rights of

publicity and copyright interests in her writings and other artistic creations to World Wisdom.

Catherine Schuon died a few months later (Filing No. 20-2 at 4; Filing No. 1 at 4; Filing No. 1-3;

Filing No. 1-4; Filing No. 1-5).

Among the copyrighted works that Catherine Schuon assigned to World Wisdom was a

handwritten document entitled "Points of Reference". It was created entirely and independently

by Catherine Schuon and is her own creative expression. At some point in time, Murray somehow

obtained a copy of Points of Reference. In early 2021, Murray and Beacon Books published the

book "Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon" ("Third Wife"), which Murray authored.

Third Wife copies in its entirety Points of Reference. Prior to Murray's publishing of Third Wife,

Points of Reference had not been made publicly available (Filing No. 20-2 at 4–5).

3
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 1379

When the Plaintiffs learned that Third Wife infringed World Wisdom's copyright in Points

of Reference, they notified Beacon Books and demanded that it halt distribution of Third Wife.

On March 15, 2021, Beacon Books withdrew Third Wife from circulation. Shortly thereafter,

Murray sent an email to Fitzgerald, demanding that Fitzgerald pay Beacon Books £10,000 in

exchange for taking the first edition of Third Wife out of circulation. In her email, Murray

threatened to continue to distribute printed and electronic versions of Third Wife. Murray

continued, and continues, to disseminate electronic versions of Third Wife. The electronic PDF

version of Third Wife does not use digital rights media software, so ongoing distribution of the

document cannot be prevented. At least seven printed copies of Third Wife have been delivered

to one or more people in Indiana (Filing No. 20-2 at 4–5; Filing No. 1 at 6–7).

On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, initiating this lawsuit to protect their

copyrighted works from infringement by Murray and Beacon Books (Filing No. 1). Soon

thereafter, on August 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking

to enjoin Murray from distributing, marketing, and advertising Third Wife (Filing No. 19). In her

pro se response to the Motion, Murray proffers that "[f]or 30 years Michael Fitzgerald has tried to

sue, bully, adjudicate and copyright every bit of evidence that would reveal the entire picture about

Frithjof Schuon, which I know perfectly. He's a confirmed suppressor of evidence." (Filing No.

33.) She concedes that

My book had some copyrighted things in it by accident (they were online and there
was no way to know they were copyrighted. I won't use them again.[)] In the Grand
Jury hearing of 1991, Michael Fitzgerald and his wife led all the followers through
with coordinated lies, fake videos and a defamation campaign against the accuser,
who was right. Frithjof Schuon was guilty of child molestation, but even the girls
embraced lied.

Id.

4
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 1380

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The standards that apply to preliminary injunction orders also apply to temporary

restraining orders ("TRO"). Loveless v. Chi. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

18832, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 8, 2004). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that

a TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result

to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)

(emphasis added.) Here, however, Murray has been put on notice regarding the motion for the

TRO and had an opportunity to respond in writing. Accordingly, the Court will proceed only on

the motion for injunctive relief. "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never

awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

"In each case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on

each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief." Id. (citation and quotation marks

omitted). Granting a preliminary injunction is "an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to

be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,

749 F.2d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1984) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish that it has some

likelihood of success on the merits; that it has no adequate remedy at law; that
without relief it will suffer irreparable harm. If the plaintiff fails to meet any of
these threshold requirements, the court must deny the injunction. However, if the
plaintiff passes that threshold, the court must weigh the harm that the plaintiff will
suffer absent an injunction against the harm to the defendant from an injunction,
and consider whether an injunction is in the public interest.

GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019) (citations and

quotation marks omitted). Courts in the Seventh Circuit employ a sliding scale approach where

the greater the likelihood of success, the less harm the moving party needs to show to obtain an

5
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 1381

injunction, and vice versa. Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of the United States

of America, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008).

III. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Murray from continuing to distribute and market her

book, Third Wife, to and within the United States. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that

Murray lives in Pakistan and conducted her alleged misconduct from there. Accordingly, the Court

must first satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction over Murray. Because Murray lives in

Pakistan, service must be proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f). The Hague

Convention does not interfere with the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels,

directly to persons abroad, so long as the state of destination does not object. (Hague Convention

on the Service of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, art. 10(a), Nov. 15, 1965.) That is, Article

10 permits service of process by mail if (1) the receiving state has not objected to service by mail,

and (2) service by mail is authorized under otherwise applicable law. Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon,

137 S. Ct. 1504, 1513 (U.S. 2017). Pakistan is a signatory to the Hague Convention and does not

object to service by postal channels if such service is recognized by the laws of the requesting

state. (See https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=436

&disp=resdn (last visited Oct. 19, 2021).) Indiana permits service by mail. See Ind. Trial R.

4.1(A)(1). Thus, service by mail to Murray, who is in Pakistan, is proper under the Hague

Convention and, therefore, under Rule 4(f)(1).

The Plaintiffs have shown that Murray was served by registered mail. Plaintiffs' counsel

mailed a Hague Convention cover sheet, summons, and complaint with exhibits to Murray. And

Murray has acknowledged receipt of these documents (Filing No. 20-8 at 2–3). Accordingly,

Murray has been properly served.

6
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 1382

When determining personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the Seventh Circuit has

explained that courts consider whether the defendant engaged in intentional conduct expressly

aimed at the forum state and with the defendant's knowledge that the effects would be felt in the

forum state. Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 703 (7th Cir. 2010). The Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that Murray's intentional conduct was directed at Indiana and Indiana residents with

the knowledge that the effects of her conduct would be felt in Indiana. Fitzgerald is an individual

residing in Bloomington, Indiana. World Wisdom is an Indiana corporation with its principal place

of business in Bloomington, Indiana. Murray has violated a settlement agreement that was

executed in Indiana, governed by Indiana law, and approved by an Indiana court (Filing No. 1-2).

The settlement agreement prohibited Murray from, among other things, disseminating information

about Fitzgerald, Schuon, and Catherine Schuon. Murray is aware that each of these individuals

lives or lived in Indiana. Murray extensively discusses these individuals, as well as Indiana

locations, in Third Wife. Murray has aimed her intentional conduct at the state of Indiana and

individuals in Indiana with the knowledge that the effects of the conduct will be felt here.

Furthermore, the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Murray will not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiffs have an interest in obtaining

convenient and effective relief, and in light of the impracticalities and inefficiencies of suing

Murray and Beacon Books in their respective locations (Pakistan and England), a single suit in

this Court promotes an efficient resolution to these claims. Therefore, the Court concludes that it

has personal jurisdiction over Murray and proceeds to the merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion.

As noted above, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if a plaintiff establishes some

likelihood of success on the merits, that it has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable

harm, the balance of equities favors an injunction, and an injunction is in the public interest.

7
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 1383

To succeed on the merits of their copyright infringement claim, the Plaintiffs must establish

(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are

original. Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755, 760 (7th Cir. 2016). The Court

concludes that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the

copyright claim. The work at issue is a work entitled Points of Reference. World Wisdom owns

a valid copyright in Points of Reference. First, Points of Reference is registered with the United

States Copyright Office and was assigned registration number TXu 2-248-902 (Filing No. 20-4).

This is sufficient to prove that World Wisdom owns a valid copyright in the work, and Murray has

not rebutted this. Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir.

1994). Additionally, it is obvious that the work is original to the author such that it is entitled to

copyright protection. Originality "means only that the work was independently created by the

author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree

of creativity." Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., 994 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 2021).

Points of Reference easily clears this standard as it is a handwritten letter independently created

by its author Catherine Schuon (Filing No. 20-3; Filing No. 20-2 at 4). Accordingly, World

Wisdom owns a valid copyright in Points of Reference.

There is no dispute that Murray copied elements of Points of Reference. Copying may be

proven by direct and indirect evidence. Direct evidence includes "evidence such as party

admissions, witness accounts of the physical act of copying, and common errors in the works."

Rottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp., 452 F.3d 726, 732 (8th Cir. 2006). In this case, there is direct

evidence of actual copying. Murray's Third Wife reproduced a complete and identical copy of

Points of Reference (compare Filing No. 20-3 at 2 with Filing No. 20-5 at 427). In fact, in her

response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Murray admitted to copying Points of

8
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 1384

Reference (see Filing No. 33 at 1 ("My book had some copyrighted things in it by accident … I

won't use them again.")). Because World Wisdom owns a valid copyright and Murray undeniably

copied the work in her book, the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their copyright

infringement claim.

Next, the Court concludes that the evidence similarly establishes that Murray's

infringement creates a likelihood of irreparable harm to World Wisdom with no adequate legal

remedy. In an email to a private investigator hired by the Plaintiffs, Murray acknowledged that

she is "breaking the law everyday" [sic], and she encouraged the private investigator to distribute

her book (Filing No. 20-7 at 2–3). Murray has made repeated attempts to widely disseminate her

infringing book and has encouraged others to share the book. World Wisdom has the right to

control the distribution of its copyrighted materials, and irreparable harm flows from a denial of

that right.

Furthermore, World Wisdom is unlikely to recover any monetary damages from Murray.

Murray's filings show that she does not have the means or intention to pay money damages to the

Plaintiffs (see Filing No. 9 at 15 ("If I get charged money by a court, I have none."); Filing No.

20-6 at 2 ("However, you actually think you'll extradite me from Pakistan? Or get a cent from me?

Well, there are unsurmountable hurdles you know.")). Given the likelihood that Murray will

continue infringing World Wisdom's copyright and that it will not be able to obtain money

damages, the Plaintiffs have shown a threat of irreparable harm without an adequate remedy at law

in the absence of a preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms favors granting an injunction. Murray

will not be harmed by the restraint on her conduct. Indeed, injunctive relief will merely require

that she stop distributing a copyrighted work upon which she is infringing. Murray already is

9
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 1385

prevented by law from infringing upon and distributing copyrighted works, and she will not be

harmed by being enjoined from breaking copyright laws. Furthermore, Murray is no longer selling

Third Wife; she is distributing it for free. Therefore, Murray will not be financially harmed by

being enjoined from distributing Third Wife. Given that Murray will not be harmed by an

injunction enjoining the distribution of Third Wife, the Plaintiffs have shown that the balance of

harms favors granting an injunction.

The Court notes that upholding copyright protections serves the public interest. Silvertop

Assocs. Inc. v. Kangaroo Mfg., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 754, 770 (D.N.J. 2018) ("preliminary

injunctions are a common judicial response to the infringement of an apparently valid copyright").

"Courts have repeatedly held that copyright and trademark law protects not only individual parties,

but the public at large." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[I]t is virtually

axiomatic that the public interest can only be served by upholding copyright protections and

correspondingly, preventing the misappropriation of skills, creative energies, and resources which

are invested in the protected work." Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 957,

978 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the public interest

will not be harmed by the issuance of an injunction.

Finally, the Court determines that no bond will be required because it appears that no

monetary injury will result from the issuance of an injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

As requested by Murray, the Court has expedited issuing a ruling, and her Motion to

Expedite Case (Filing No. 55) is GRANTED.

Because each of the factors for the issuance of a preliminary injunction weighs in favor of

Plaintiffs Michael Fitzgerald and World Wisdom, Inc., the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' Motion

10
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 1386

for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 19). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), the

Court ISSUES A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION prohibiting Murray from directly or

indirectly:

a. Distributing, selling, or offering for sale copies of "Third Wife of the Muslim

Shaykh Frithjof Schuon" in any format or medium, to any person or location

within the United States; and

b. Engaging in any marketing, advertising, or any other conduct that seeks

requests of her book "Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon" that

is accessible to any person or location within the United States, including but

not limited to, on the internet (e.g., blogs, websites) and on any and all social

media platforms (e.g., Twitter).

It is further ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Murray

shall remove all solicitations, advertisements, or information about her book "Third Wife of the

Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon" that is under her control and accessible to any person or location

within the United States, including but not limited to postings or information on the internet (e.g.,

blogs, websites) and on any and all social media platforms (e.g., Twitter). The Plaintiffs need not

post a bond.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/20/2021

11
Case 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB Document 57 Filed 10/20/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 1387

DISTRIBUTION:

Elizabeth Anne Charles Maude Murray

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP c/o Dilawar Khan, Son of Abdul Qayyum
[email protected] Mandroch Khurd
P.O. Nawan Shehr
Louis T. Perry Abbottabad, KPK
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Pakistan
[email protected]

Jason Rauch
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
[email protected]

12