On August 11, 2011, the Court directed Plaintiff to decide whether to name S.P. as a Defendant and that, if it chose to do so, to amend its complaint within seven days of August 11, 2011. The Court warned Plaintiff that, if it failed to respond, its claims against Doe 10 would be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
G. Sperlein decided not to sue the remaining defendant at this time and let this case collapse by ignoring the deadline.
As time passes, and the public awareness and outrage are growing, it is becoming less and less likely that Sperlein would dare filing a new lawsuit against Doe #10. Although it is possible in theory (the dismissal was without prejudice), it is just does not make any sense:
- It is hard to believe that a Doe who fought (and therefore is well informed) can be coerced to pay.
- Winning such case is also impossible, especially in light of new discoveries about the “evidence” extortionists possess.