(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits;

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and

(4) where the public interest lies.

It’s like an advertisement for why they shouldn’t get a Stay.

1. They are unlikely to succeed based on the fact that their business is built on fraud, which was noted by a District Judge.

2. I don’t think they care about their reputation. There is no way for them to appear the good guy in the scam that they are running. They know that they’re bottom feeders. The people who they extort will not feel any better or worse about them based on this case.

3. A stay will clearly and substantially injure other parties interested, because the settlement letters have not stopped. Prenda, Duffy and the gang continue the very behavior that got them sanctioned. If the Stay keeps other courts from being informed on the scheme being perpetrated by these guys, their is great risk that others could be taken advantage of.

4. Protecting the general public from malicious litigation is in the public interest

Therefore… No Stay.

Case – 3:12-cv-07620-PGS-TJB
File Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Plaintiff: Patrick Collins Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

5/20/2013 24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by PATRICK COLLINS, INC. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

Is it for one person, or is it for the entire case?

Jordan Rushie • a month ago:

Also, this opinion is on appeal right now in the D.C. Circuit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1025…

If there is one section of law where there is “federal common law” it’s bittorrent litigation. Almost all the authority comes from District Court.

In any case, when I did railroad defense, part of the problem is how national the issues were. There are only a few railroad defense law firms in the country, so it also involved having a law firm directing the litigation by using local counsel. It’s paramount to know the specific issues in railroad litigation.

It’s the same with Prenda and bittorrent litigation. There are only a few law firms that are competent to represent porn companies in intellectual property matters. Prenda is one of them. But due to the nature of piracy, they directed the litigation but had to use local counsel if the client had needs out of state. However, it’s more important to know the issues specific to bittorrent litigation than anything. Like it or not, Prenda is one of the few law firms that knows how to do it, and what the issues are.

I just think it’s very unfair to suggest they are not a “real” law firm. They’ve litigated a ton of cases successfully, and the model was built on the needs of the client.

J Prater – you may want to submit a motion to quash (anonymously) as well. Perhaps if Judge Rice gets several of these this will get quashed sooner rather than later.

I received a letter from my ISP regarding a subpoena, which included a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Take Discovery.
The practice that Maureen VanderMay is attempting is commonly referred to as copyright trolling. From accounts of previous defendants of this kind of case, these subpoena notifications are followed by demand letters. These letters — which demand between $2000 and $4000 to avoid dealing with their lawsuit — and their phone calls, which are persistent , are the reason I am filing this motion, and for this reason, I respectfully request that I be allowed to do so without revealing my personally identifying information. That being said, I do want to offer the court a means of contacting me and have therefore created an anonymous email address:

INTRODUCTION
To cut court costs while suing as many individuals as possible, Plaintiff’s counsel, Maureen VanderMay is using improper joinders in their mass lawsuits alleging copyright infringement through BitTorrent. These lawsuits include hundreds of defendants in Washington alone. Maureen VanderMay has filed an identical mass subpoena in Eastern Washington: Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-152 case No. C13-0507RSL. Justice Robert Lasnik notes in the Order to Show Cause Quashing all Subpoenas:
“As the full extent of this assignment has become clear, the Court admits to some concerns regarding both the appropriateness of joinder and the possibility the judicial authority of the United States may be used to wrest improvident settlements from pro se litigants under threat of huge statutory penalties. The Court is not alone: other judicial officers in the Ninth Circuit are beset by the same concerns and have taken various paths to mitigate the potential for abuse. See, e.g., Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, No. 2:12-cv-9333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013); Voltage Pictures LLC v. Does 1-12, No. 2:13-292-AA (D. Or. May 4, 2013).”