These numbers also communicate the amount that Steele and his gang saved on court filing fees by lumping together more than a hundred Does per case on average. If all the cases would be filed individually (as they should be), the cash-strapped courts would receive 15,878 ⋅ $350 = $5,557,300. Since only 118 ⋅ $350 = $41,300 was paid to file the listed cases, the citizens of the U.S. have been robbed of over $5.5 million in fees rightfully owed to the courts.
The most famous and amusing part of Gibbs’ reply was his unambiguous affirmative statement that “no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases”, which underlines the hollowness of the threats to sue everyone who would not pay the ransom.
Seeing the significance of this self-incriminating document, I predicted that defendants would soon use it to complement motions to quash/dismiss. I was correct.
A Florida attorney Joseph A. Yolofsky filed a motion to quash (and for protective order) on behalf of one of the Prenda’s victims in the Boy Racer v Does 1-34 case (1:11-cv-23035), and he later submitted a notice attaching the abovementioned document. Not surprisingly, Prenda’s con artists did not like it. Joseph Perea, who files Prenda’s cases in Florida, including this particular case, was understandably frustrated by the fact that the judge would learn uncomfortable (for the trolls) truth about the scammy nature of cases like this. He called Mr. Yolofsky and demanded that the notice must be withdrawn within 60 minutes otherwise threatening to file a motion for sanctions. Mr. Perea could not provide any coherent explanation of the basis for those sanctions though. I bet that Prenda lawyers lost their connection with reality and treated an attorney as one of their unrepresented victims. Big mistake.
Naturally, Mr. Yolofsky refused to withdraw the document that is relevant to the case, and Perea executed his threats and moved for sanctions. In his motion Perea argued that Gibbs’ response is unrelated to the case, that the “notice is to falsely state that Plaintiff’s counsel has never named and served an infringer in any of its cases nationwide,” and that Mr. Yolofsky acted in bad faith to mislead the court and abuse the process (aren’t you laughing yet?).
Mr. Yolofsky was neither upset nor deterred by the Perea’s frivolous motion. “There is a saying that if a trial attorney has never had a sanctions motion filed against them, then they are not aggressive enough to be successful.” — he comments with a smile as he files a response in opposition; this response is very entertaining and up to the point, it debunks Perea’s claims so thoroughly that I almost feel pity for the little troll. Definitely, Mr. Yolofsky had fun writing this document, and therefore you will have fun reading it. Enjoy.
The nearest hearing on this case is set to April 2. Judge Goodman did this on his own, which is encouraging. Most likely, the sanctions issue will be added to the agenda. Some defense lawyers we know, Danny Simon and Richard Viscasillas, represent various defendants in this case, so they will attend that hearing. I hope that judge Goodman will find time to educate himself about copyright trolling legal plague and will be able to contribute to trolls’ demise. I’ll keep you updated.