Paul Duffy dumps the second lawsuit assigned to an “inconvenient” judge

Posted: December 19, 2011 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Remember how John Steele was ridiculed by judge Shadur after his two troll cases in a row were assigned to a judge who once said that this divorce-lawyer-turned-copyright-hound “abused the litigation system in more than one way”?

It seems that attorney John Steele (“Steele”) might be well advised to stay away from Las Vegas or other casinos, because his current filing on behalf of plaintiff Boy Racer, Inc. has—despite odds in the range of 25 to 1—been assigned at random to the calendar of this District Court, which had previously been the recipient of another random assignment of a Steele-filed action (that one being CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300, No. 10 C 6255). This Court had ended up dismissing the CP Productions action for the reasons stated in its February 7, 2011 memorandum order and its February 24, 2011 memorandum opinion and order, which (among other reasons) rejected attorney Steele’s effort to shoot first and identify his targets later.

Now we witness how Paul Duffy, Steele’s apprentice, follows in his master’s steps. Duffy was no luckier with his DC cases than Steele was in Chicago. His debut lawsuit was assigned to judge Bates, who (unlike many other judges) paid attention to anonymous motions and strongly suspected that the court was used as a front end for a brazen scam, so he ordered Does to go forward and speak out their frustrations under seal, protecting them from premature harassment. Subpoenas to ISPs were stayed.


Federal judge
Robert Leon Wilkins

In his next two cases Duffy was even less fortunate: the first one was assigned to judge Robert Wilkins, known for his strong opposition to “fishing expeditions” — lumping together defendants from many jurisdictions. So what did Paul Duffy do? He simply dismissed the entire suit immediately after learning to which judge this case was assigned: the case was filed on 11/15, dismissed on 11/18. The second one was assigned to… judge Wilkins again. I was curiously watching… And what do you think? This case was dismissed on Friday: this time it took 9 days: a record! Surprised? I’m not.

I’m not a specialist in legal ethics and court rules, but from the common sense perspective, the mechanism of randomly assigning judges to cases makes a lot of sense as a safeguard against tendentiousness. If “shopping” for judges is not a sanctionable conduct, I would be disappointed. As Mike Masnick wrote a couple of months ago,

With so many lawyers jumping into the copyright trolling game lately, using the same basic blueprint (if only they’d sue each other for infringement!), it would be nice if we could get a higher court to issue a bright line rule that said such a joining of totally unrelated parties is totally improper. That could cut off this whole shakedown game quickly. But until we get that, these copyright trolling operations will just continue forum shopping, hoping to find a judge who isn’t hip to how they’re just using the judicial system as a way to force people into paying money.

By the way, anyone still believes that these scumbags are “fighting piracy”?

Update

5/14/2012
DieTrollDie reports that at least one of these lawsuits reemerged in Texas by Prenda’s goon Douglas McIntyre: it’s slightly different, more sleaziness is added (trying to present it as a lawsuit against a single Doe but listing pages and pages of co-conspirators), but the IP addresses are reused.

5/29/2012
Comcast notices blatant judge shopping and refuses to hand out customers’ info. Now Sleele emerges from under the bridge trying to compel Comcast to betray its customers.

Rob Cashman posts news and insight regarding this drama.

6/26/2012
Judge Wilkins rules: denies Prenda’s motion to compel, only allowing Prenda to get location (state and city) of each accused subscriber: Pyrrhic victory: this information is openly available via geolocation tools.

Note Judge Wilkins’s awareness about all Prenda’s deeds: he even mentions a counter-suit (Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Inc., No. 3:12-1006) and extortion letters. We’ve been watching each Prenda’s step, and trolls did not like it, but when a federal judge hints that he watches too, it should send some shivers down scumbags’ spines.

Raul adds a few initial impressions:

  1. The judge has given to the ISPs a roadmap should they elect to contest Prenda’s other pending subpoenas and succeed.
  2. The judge has cleverly pointed to a “new” ground for Does to move to quash: abuse of Rule 45.
  3. The judge has shoved Prenda’s abusive subpoena practices up its collective ass.
  4. The judge has pointed out that Prenda’s legal theory of civil conspiracy (“borrowed” from Randazza) is bullshit and is preempted by the Copyright Act and it’s venue provision. This ought to be useful for any Doe caught up in just about any Prenda lawsuit (LMC, CP Productions, Sunlust, etc.).

I am sure I missed a few thing but those are the highlights. What the judge did not mention is how Rule 41 will now come into play, DTD did a post about this in May. Basically if you are named in two voluntarily dismissed lawsuits, it operates as an adjudication in your favor meaning trolls cannot sue you a third time. Prenda is now in a Catch-22 position as it will have to dismiss Millenium II Does if they do not reside in TX, but if they do that, Rule 41 bars a third lawsuit.

Comments
  1. JDS says:

    Attaboy Duffy!! Game over!! Run Troll Run :D

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    Thanks SJD! Been a busy weekend for you. Fight Piracy???? For the Trolls and the copyright owners involved, piracy (to include the mere allegation of it with low-grade proof) equals profits for them). That would mean the Trolls would have to find some other revenue stream and the copyright owners would actually have to change their business model to adapt to technology and society.

    DieTrollDie :)

  3. skruuball@gmail.com says:

    At what point does someone make a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 against these guys?

  4. CTVic says:

    I had to google “tedentiousness”. There’s my vocab lesson for the day.
    Yes, I believe that the trollawyers will be encountering an ever-increasing level of tedentiousness as these cases continue to spread and more and more judges wake up to the fact that they’re carpet-bombing the internet to catch the crooks who see them coming a mile away, and simply cannot be caught with such heavy-handed and ill-guided techniques.

    And yes, of course they’re “fighting piracy”! Don’t be ridiculous! They’re doing it EXACTLY the same way that the United States fought terror with the shock-and-awe carpet-bombing of Baghdad! Taking down an oppressive, but unrelated, regime that had nothing to do with terrorism sure taught those terrorists a lesson! Before destabilizing the ruling government, causing anarchy and a power vacuum that actually drew the terrorists in … and made the general population loathe the invading army to the degree that they started sympathizing with the incoming terrorists when they weren’t too busy fighting each other in miscellaneous uncontrolled sectarian violence …

    …Wait…

    Let me rethink that line of reasoning before I put it in my next motion to the court.

  5. anonymous says:

    I wonder where Captain John “hubris” Steele is with a comment?

    • Anonymous says:

      Well… Since his gang now uses comments from this site in motions, he must of figured that could work both ways and his comments could be used against his scam also. Maybe I am just giving him to much credit. He will mist likely appear before xmas with a lump of FUD.

  6. anonymous says:

    Yes. You are giving his ego too much credit.

    The best part of the trolls dismissing cases like Steel and Duffy have done, it makes a crystal clear statement regarding the credibility of their suits.

  7. anonymous says:

    1:11-cv-09066 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1 – 43
    Milton I. Shadur, presiding
    Date filed: 12/21/2011
    Date terminated: 12/22/2011
    Date of last filing: 12/22/2011

    What’s the matter Paul “steele Jr” Duffy?

  8. DoeDoe says:

    anonymous,

    Judge Shadur tends to hate these cases, and repeatedly threw them out – John ‘Rusty’ Steele knows it all too well. A bunch of lucky Does, I would say…

    P.S. In case this was thinly veiled irony, sorry I completely missed it…

  9. [...] Paul Duffy dumps the second lawsuit assigned to an “inconvenient” judge [...]

  10. [...] On 19 Dec 11, Sophisticatedjanedoe posted a story about Paul Duffy, Prenda Law, closing down two cases that were assigned to Judge Robert Wilkins – Paul Duffy dumps the second lawsuit assigned to an “inconvenient” judge. [...]

  11. Raul says:

    Wow! Sitting in the library parking parking lot as my Wi-Fi is out for the next 24 hours and have finished reading Judge Wilken’s Memorandum Opinion. I am sure Cashman or DTD will dissect it but wanted to throw out. A few initial impressions.

    1. The judge has given to the ISPs a roadmap should they elect to contest Prenda’s other pending subpoenas and succeed.

    2. The judge has cleverly pointed to a “new” ground for Does to move to quash: abuse of Rule 45.

    3. The judge has shoved Prenda’s abusive subpoena practices up its collective ass.

    4. The judge has pointed out that Prenda’s legal theory of civil conspiracy (“borrowed” from Randazza) is bullshit and is preempted by the Copyright Act and it’s venue provision. This ought to be useful for any Doe caught up in just about any Prenda lawsuit (LMC, CP Productions, Sunlust, etc.).

    I am sure I missed a few thing but those are the highlights. What the judge did not mention is how Rule 41 will now come into play, DTD did a post about this in May but I am on the IPad and cannot link to it. Basically if you are named in two voluntarily dismissed lawsuits it operates as an adjudication in your favor meaning trolls cannot sue you a third time. Prenda is now in a Catch-22 position as it will have to dismiss Millenium II Does if they do not reside in TX but if they do that Rule 41bars a third lawsuit. I wish I could say I was the clever guy who came up with this but DTD predicted this might happen last month (track down his post “Two Strikes and You’re ‘Out!’”).

    • Anonymous says:

      I hope John Steele’s ISP Ass Kicking foot has had time to heal. Looks like it’s going to need to kick harder next time.

    • Anonymous says:

      Interesting how all the Prenda hand-waving in various venues about not really accusing Doe, just trying to discover the ‘real infringer’ has come home to roost. Seems like the judge paid particular attention to the fact that subscribers may not actually be parties to the lawsuit, and thus should not be unduly burdened.

      L
      O
      L

  12. [...] Prenda Law Inc., closed it only nine days after it was assigned to an unfriendly judge – Fightcopyrighttroll’s Article.   I wrote about the case when Prenda Law Inc., repackaged it into a new case in Texas, four days [...]

  13. [...] Prenda Law Inc., closed it only nine days after it was assigned to an unfriendly judge – Fightcopyrighttroll’s Article.   I wrote about the case when Prenda Law Inc., repackaged it into a new case in Texas, four days [...]

  14. […] you noted, Pietz accuses Lipscomb and his local counsel Jon Hoppe of blatant forum shopping. Indeed, even a colette would understand why the trolls, being confronted on the contingency fee […]

  15. Marcell says:

    Hi colleagues, nice article and pleasant urging commented at this place, I
    am in fact enjoying by these.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s