DieTrollDie

DieTrollDie is a Doe in one of the mass copyright cases. The case against DieTrollDie was dismissed thanks to motions filed.

DieTrollDie recently filed a Declaration to Refute Plaintiff's Declaration. This was in response to Plaintiff's Attorney Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration where he specifically mentioned DieTrollDie & blog.

Please, do take the time to read both declarations as they are a wealth of information.

Another dismissal in Virginia, Judges considers Rule 11 Sanctions

In my previous post, I posted a decision in the Hard Drive Productions v Does where Judge dismissed the action for improper joinder. Another case was also dismisse din Virginia, Raw Films, Ltd. v. Does 1-32.

Judge John A. Gibney not only dismissed the case and it "swarm theory". The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why his conduct did not merit Rule 11 sanctions. The court suggested that it appeared that plaintiff was merely to obtain enough information to "shake down" defendants and get them to settle and had no intention of litigating the case.

I just got a copy of the case. See the decision below.

Raw Films v. Does

Dismissal in Virginia

Fighting Copyright Trolls, the best blog to get this information, posted today a decision in Virginia. The decision is by Judge Tommy E. Miller. Judge Miller dismissed the action for improper joinder. Moreover, Judge Miller makes a note about the phone calls the defendants are receiving, the "opportunity to settle before being named in the Complaint."

"On October 13, 2011, another anonymous Doe Defendant (“Doe Defendant X”) filed a letter under seal with the Court. Letter, ECF No. 16. In this letter, Doe Defendant X stated that he had been contacted by John Steele, Esq. regarding this matter. During the phone call, Mr. Steele offered Anonymous the ‘opportunity’ to settle for $3,400 by October 18th. Mr. Steele informed Doe Defendant X that Doe Defendant X would be named as a defendant in the case should this settlement offer be rejected."

In the case I represent, I am being contacted by a man, who is not an attorney, offering my client the opportunity to settle before being named in the complaint. The man is either affiliated with the studio or with the lawfirm).

11 Cv 00345 HCM TEM Document 19 Order

Rule 11, asking for sanctions

11 Cv 00469 JAG Document 9 Order


I stumbled upon this opinion in the great great http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/ blog. This is a MUST read for eveyone that is facing a copyright case.

The quote worthy part, by Judge Gibney:

This course of conduct indicates that the plaintiffs have used the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain the Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce payment from them. The plaintiffs seemingly have no interest in actually litigating the cases, but rather simply have used the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the John Does. Whenever the suggestion of a ruling on the merits of the claims appears on the horizon, the plaintiffs drop the John Doe threatening to litigate the matter in order to avoid the actual cost of litigation and an actual decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs’ conduct in these cases indicates an improper purpose for the suits. In addition, the joinder of unrelated defendants does not seem to be warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous extension of existing law.

Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3), the Court, therefore, will direct the plaintiff and its counsel to show cause why the conduct specifically described in this Memorandum Order has not violated Rule 11(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

Welcome to the lawsuit...i mean show!

Dear blog readers,

Recently, some of my friends and clients have been "sued" in those mass copyright lawsuits. The lawsuits are in Florida and D.C. Of course, no where near where my clients or friends live. I have spent a bit of time researching this issue online. As I explore more, I hope to share this information with you guys, so that youa re in the same position, you, more or less, know what you should do.

As I mentioned, ther eis a case pending in D.C. and another in Florida. From what I read, the cases in California are getting easily dismissed and the judges seem to be fed up with the mass lawsuits. But, Florida seems to be different. More friendly to the lawsuits. The judge in my Florida case denied the Motions to Quash and stated that defendants had to reveal their names, address and phone number if they wanted to file a motion. So while the Motions to Quash might make it more expensive to litigate the case, they don't seem to work in Florida.

I can tell you that in one case, the studios hired a call center, or something, to call and offer a settlement. The settlement amount is $2,500.00

-_-

Thoughts, comments, ideas?