Prenda Law makes the classified number of actually served defendants public

Posted: March 1, 2012 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our lawsuit against you personally will not commence
until we serve you with a Complaint, which we are prepared to do if our settlement efforts fail.”
 
(From Prenda Law’s demand letter)

Recently Northern California district judge Lucy H. Koh commanded copyright troll Brett Gibbs (Prenda Law) to answer certain questions. In particular, she wanted to know

A list of the BitTorrent copyright infringement cases involving multiple joined John Doe Defendants filed Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm or predecessor firm in federal court. Identify the case by name, case number, court, and filing date. For each case, indicate how many Doe Defendants were actually served.

Well, we know how many defendants were actually served. Nonetheless, it was amusing to hear this answer from a troll, especially observing a long list of cases that MCGIP, Steele Hansmeier and Prenda Law have filed to date (I counted 118):

Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases.

Many thanks to you, John Steele, and to your restless crew of useful arts promoters, for an excellent illustration to your 1.5-year long scam. I have no doubt that this document will make a good exhibit to numerous motions and counterclaims.

Update

4/11/2012

After a reader has spotted that some of Prenda’s cases were not disclosed as ordered. I decided to write a separate post about it.

About these ads
Comments
  1. [...] eventually people caught on that JOHN STEELE WAS NOT “NAMING” ANYONE AS A DEFENDANT, and no doubt his cases lost any credibility the might have had. Even judges started calling his [...]

  2. [...] Every time I see Nick Ranallo’s work, I want to take off my hat. John Steele, annoyed by too much truth being publicized about his shady practices, labeled Nick as “underemployed lawyer trolling for business.” We know that Steele usually tries to brush off someone’s actions publicly only when these actions seriously hurt Prenda’s shakedown “business.” Therefore, it is not an understatement to call Nick one of the most capable Prenda’s foes: indeed, Nick continues delivering very serious blows to copyright trolls with every new case he defends. Embedded below is a new must-read Motion to Post Undertaking in one of the numerous Prenda’s individual cases, AF Holdings v. David Trinh (CAND 12-cv-02393-CRB ) filed by Prenda’s California agent, Brett “Pinocchio” Gibbs. [...]

  3. [...] 12/17/2012 Brett Gibbs files a motion for sanctions against a “serial filer” (oh irony!) Morgan Pietz, basically reiterating the same delusional accusations as in the document embedded [...]

  4. [...] to do just about anything to obtain grist for its national “settlement” mill. Repeatedly, in hundreds of actions filed in courts across the country, Prenda has resorted to misrepresentations, halftruths, and [...]

  5. […] when a judge ordered Prenda to submit a detailed report of its shakedown activities? The report created quite a stir by revealing (or, more precisely, confirming) the fact that Prenda had served exactly zero […]

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