Copyright troll Brett Gibbs disobeys judge’s order and affirmatively refuses to post a bond

Posted: January 11, 2013 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This write-up was supposed to be yet another update to my October 25 post Nick Ranallo to Prenda: “Put your money where your mouth is,” but that post is already too long and overloaded with updates. In addition, I wanted to make Prenda’s and Gibbs’s douchebaggery a little bit more visible by shaping this update as a separate post.

The previous events for those who don’t want to read the original story: Nick Ranallo, a defense counsel in AF Holdings, LLC v. Trinh (12-cv-02393), invoking a California Rule CCP 1030, asked the court to compel the plaintiff, AF Holdings, to post an undertaking because 1) the likelihood of a judgment in defendant’s favor is substantial, and 2) AF Holdings is a foreign corporation (actually it is most likely a fake corporation, but I wrote about it enough already). This motion was granted, and the troll was required to post a $48,000 bond by 12/9/2012.

As expected, Prenda did not post the bond in the timeframe allotted by the court. On 12/27 Ranallo filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure to post undertaking and citing unambiguous language of the judge’s order. Citing the Rule 41(b), Mr. Ranallo reasonably argued that this dismissal should be with prejudice.

Of course, Gibbs replied. Of course, he disagreed. Of course, this reply was both apoplectic and twisted. Of course, a reflex palmface ensued.

Brett “Pinocchio” Gibbs’s reply can be briefed in the following way:

“Screw you, judge, screw your order, my mysterious client is not going to part with its money. Our Caribbean Righthaven is broke and poor; $48,000 is too much: it does not even have enough money to pay its lawyers. None of us attorneys can even afford to buy a Mercedes-Benz 550 SL¹, or to have a Caribbean wedding, or a birthday party on Hawaii. Also, the Copyright Act was specifically designed for fake entities like AF Holdings, so they could use fraudulently obtained copyrights to harass and intimidate the contributing members of the society with the help from us, leeches. Last, but not least, dismissal with prejudice is not supported by the law as I interpret it. I will conveniently be silent about the rule 41(b), and argue some unrelated crap instead: maybe the judge won’t notice.”

 

 

There is an urban legend that one of the chess geniuses (I don’t remember who exactly, let it be Bobby Fischer for the sake of the story) had a simultaneous exhibition with a number of a chess club members once. After the grandmaster started one particular game with a common e2-e4, his amateur opponent kept thinking about his response for 2 hours. The legend says that Fischer broke in tears and resigned.

By no means have I suggested to Nick to yield the victory to the troll, I only wanted to illustrate Nick’s state of mind² every time he receives a copy of Gibbs’s motion. In addition to inducing a headache by inserting a shrill voice in a reader’s head, every Brett’s apoplectic write-up twists the facts and the law so grossly that that his opponent, no matter how professional, is flabbergasted, lost and at first has no slightest idea how to respond.

Featured comment

lkj wrote on 2013/01/11 at 6:30 pm:

Gibbs’ “Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” is legally frivolous and vexatious, and Gibbs should be sanctioned for having filed it, under Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Gibbs already had a chance to litigate the question of whether a bond (undertaking) should have been imposed. The judge ruled against him, and if Gibbs disagrees with the order to post a bond, his only options are either to 1) wait for the case to be dismissed and file an appeal; or 2) file a motion to reconsider the order to post a bond. He’s not entitled to re-argue this already-decided issue in a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defense counsel could file a motion for sanctions, and to have Gibbs declared a vexatious litigant (someone who repeatedly files frivolous papers with the court, see CCP 391). Gibbs’ crazed motion to disqualify Judge Wright would be a good exhibit to attach to such a motion, as another example of his frivolous filings..

Also, since AF Holdings is arguably a sham entity, the argument could be made (for purposes of declaring Gibbs to be a vexatious litigant under CCP 391) that Gibbs is really suing in pro per in the AF Holdings cases. [sjd: the same is true for Ingenuity 13]

Update 1

1/20/2013
On 1/17/2013 Nick Ranallo replied to Gibbs’s insult to Judge Breyer’s intelligence (thanks to Raul for the heads up). This reply is worth reading. If you are a casual reader who stumbled upon this post without having any idea who the players are, and still confused, I suggest reading Gibbs’s frivolity (embedded above) and Nick’s reply (embedded below) either side-by-side or in a quick succession. Even without knowing Prenda’s history of fraud and abuse, “wow, what a crook” reaction to the former document is guaranteed.

The conclusion of Mr. Ranallo’s Reply Memo is especially beautiful (emphasis is mine):

A non-resident undertaking is not a forfeiture, it is merely a guarantee that Plaintiff will be able to satisfy its obligations if its claims fail. It is important to remember that AF Holdings is not being asked to pay $48,000 in order to prove its claims — it is only being asked to demonstrate that it will be financially responsible for its decision to proceed in the manner that they have chosen. If AF Holdings were correct and Mr. Trinh were found liable, they would owe nothing and would be assured to reap substantial financial rewards, plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff would like responsibility for ones actions to be a one-way street, imposed upon individual internet subscribers but not applicable to the offshore litigation machine that brings suit. In truth, the only way to make AF Holdings honestly evaluate its claims prior to naming and embarrassing a defendant is to make them financially responsible for their behavior when it misses the mark. If Plaintiff will not put its money where its proverbial mouth is, Mr. Trinh requests that they be forced to close said mouth in the future, and should not be allowed to continue its campaign of shame and embarrassment based on allegations that it chooses not to stand behind.

Update 2

1/30/2013

In CACD Brett Gibbs is running as a thief caught pilfering a loaf of bread. Yesterday he also resigned from this case: Paul Duffy is set to receive slaps and blows from Nicholas Ranallo. Actually, as Paul Duffy is mostly nominal figure, I expect that John Steele will try to salvage the dire situation. Futile, IMO.

A little bit of entertainment: note the email Paul Duffy specifies as his: paduffy@antipiracylawgroup.com. Now put away any sharp things, don’t eat or drink, and copy the URL (antipiracylawgroup.com) to your browser’s address box. Hit Enter.

Update 3

5/24/2013

This story has a relatively happy ending (it will 100% happy when the fees are collected).

 


¹One of the recent John Steele drunken tweets: “New list of inevitable things: Death, taxes, claims of our doom, and fresh settlements every day. BTW, I decided on matte grey for the 550SL.”

²Specially for Brett Gibbs: this is my educated guess only, I never discussed this case with Nick Ranallo. Sorry.

About these ads
Comments
  1. [...] Copyright troll Brett Gibbs disobeys judge’s order and affirmatively refuses to post a bond [...]

  2. lkj says:

    Gibbs’ “Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” is legally frivolous and vexatious, and Gibbs should be sanctioned for having filed it, under Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Gibbs already had a chance to litigate the question of whether a bond (undertaking) should have been imposed. The judge ruled against him, and if Gibbs disagrees with the order to post a bond, his only options are either to 1) wait for the case to be dismissed and file an appeal; or 2) file a motion to reconsider the order to post a bond. He’s not entitled to re-argue this already-decided issue in a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defense counsel could file a motion for sanctions, and to have Gibbs declared a vexatious litigant (someone who repeatedly files frivolous papers with the court, see CCP 391). Gibbs’ crazed motion to disqualify Judge Wright would be a good exhibit to attach to such a motion, as another example of his frivolous filings..

    • lkj says:

      Also, since AF Holdings is arguably a sham entity, the argument could be made (for purposes of declaring Gibbs to be a vexatious litigant under CCP 391) that Gibbs is really suing in pro per in the AF Holdings cases.

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Thanks SJD. Gibbs/Prenda just keeping filing BS motions to delay any possible decisions. They dont realize they have pissed off and attacked too many people end this without legal bloodshed. The delays will happen, but time is getting shorter for them. We have some really good legal minds on our side, as well as determined Does. Trolls – you are on notice.

    DTD :)

  4. Raul says:

    On 1-17 Nick Ranallo replied to Gibbs’ frivolous opposition pagers which is very weel reasoned and thorough. My favorite quote is a the end:

    “If Plaintiff will not
    put its money where its proverbial mouth is, Mr. Trinh requests that they be forced to close said
    mouth in the future, and should not be allowed to continue its campaign of shame and
    embarrassment based on allegations that it chooses not to stand behind.”

    http://ia600605.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254879/gov.uscourts.cand.254879.36.0.pdf

  5. 89 Year Old Defender says:

    Poor Mr. Gibbs.

  6. [...] persistence of Prenda and its Californian shakedown ambassador counsel Brett Gibbs, with which they have been trying to weasel out, indicates a success on its own, as it clearly shows that the king is naked, and the clowns cannot [...]

  7. Sausages says:

    Looks like Duffy forgot to answer the phone for the hearing and the Judge dismissed it with prejudice. Any other attorney probably deserves the benefit of the doubt, but given it is Prenda, it is likely a delaying/harassing tactic to keep the case open and/or delay having to pay costs and fees.

  8. [...] that remain active are the Magsumbol case, where a voluntary dismissal had been denied, and the Trinh case, also in San Francisco, where a $40,000 undertaking had been required, but because Prenda Law [...]

  9. [...] that remain active are the Magsumbol case, where a voluntary dismissal had been denied, and the Trinh case, also in San Francisco, where a $40,000 undertaking had been required, but because Prenda Law [...]

  10. […] motion to post an undertaking was granted (AF Holdings, LLC v. Trinh, 12-cv-02393). After Prenda unsuccessfully tried to reverse judge’s decision, on 3/8/2012 Judge Breyer issued a judgement with prejudice against the Plaintiff. The concern of […]

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