Prenda’s lawyer files a motion for sanctions; response in opposition delivers an elegant blow to the troll

I recently wrote about how Prenda’s “rogue partner” Brett Gibbs was commanded to list all Prenda’s (and its predecessors’) mass porn bittorent cases and to indicate how many Doe defendants were actually served. In his reply, Gibbs has listed 118 cases. One of this blog’s readers counted the number of Does — 15,878. Not as epic as the number of victims in the US copyright trolls’ “founding fathers” Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver’s cases, but still an impressive number.

Theoretically, if every putative defendant would succumb to threats and pay the $3,400 demand, the entire scam would pay whooping $54 million dollars. Not a surprise that ethically challenged attorneys adopted this moneymaking scheme without hesitation.

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 Yolofsky and demanded that the notice must be withdrawn within 60 minutes otherwise threatening to file a motion for sanctions.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.

wordpress counter


33 responses to ‘Prenda’s lawyer files a motion for sanctions; response in opposition delivers an elegant blow to the troll

  1. Whos gonna make the popcorn while we watch this train wreck… and is it to late to rent a calliope to play every time Pretenda speaks?

  2. Everybody knew these trolls “business model” would start to fall apart sooner or later, its just a shame that they made as much money as they have already from this scam. Hopefully Karma serves them a hefty dose of counter suits which causes them to lose all they have gained from this practice.

  3. For those who understand Russian (hope Dmitriy Shirokov visits this blog):

    Emergency shutdown

    The sign says “Emergency shutdown of trolls”. Probably the word “of trolls” (“троллей”) was a result of shortening “троллейбусов” (trolley-buses).

  4. Irony defined…Perea (aka the asshole who threatened to sue me in Florida…I do not live in Florida or within 1,000 miles of it) alleges abuse of the judicial process. Maybe they should double check what they’re doing – suing tens, hundreds, thousands of people at a time for a mere $350 filing fee.

    My favorite quote: “…falsely state that Plaintiff’s counsel has never named and served an infringer in any of its cases nationwide.”

    So, according to Perea, Gibbs perjured himself in CAND by stating that his firm has never served a defendant. What is it, Joe? Did Gibbs lie or are you lying?

  5. It would be asking too much but I would love to see Perea hit with Rule 11 sanctions for making a meritlous/frivolous motion requesting sanctions.

  6. Hello guys, I’ve received yet another letter from Prenda law signed Joseph Perea. I ignored the first letter because I do not have any knowledge of the downloaded material nor have it. Now this one says I have until April 13th 2012 to respond or they will assume I have no interest in resolving through settlement. When is this case going to be finally resolved. It is such a nuisance. It is the Openmind solutions vs 1-565 case. Has anyone else received this type of letter.

    • urgh. This is a common tactic. they will keep extending the deadlines a couple of times to see if you will contact them. Unless they name you in a lawsuit, or receive official summons from court, it is best to ignore and not initiate contact, or talk to trolls.

      • They’ll keep extending deadlines on lawsuits they’ve dismissed. They’re doing that shit to me right now. My case was dismissed a few months back and Lutz still calls twice a week, telling me that they’re gonna serve me with papers (have fun with that) and I got a letter from Perea, informing me of the plaintiff’s “generosity” in extending the settlement deadline (for the same case that Duffy dismissed). It’s getting…laughable because I think they truly don’t know that this case has been dismissed. Thinking about getting a lawyer to draft a nice cease and fuck off letter 🙂 If it was dismissed with prejudice, I’d be drafting letters to the judge and the ARDC.

    • Yes, I have a file specifically for these letters titled “Asshole Scumbag Lawyer(s).” I just file each one as it comes in, then ignore it. I screen my calls, record every message Lutz leaves on my machine just in case. Hell, Perea called me one time and he sounded like a bigger idiot than Lutz, which is a very tall order hahaha.

      The thing is my case was dismissed months ago. They’ll keep going at you even after you’re dismissed because I think they have no idea that Duffy dismissed the whole damn case. That just shows the level of stupidity (or complete lack of scruples) we’re dealing with. Their racket is getting so big that they don’t know what’s going on. Just laugh it off, no sense in getting pissed or freaking out.

      • Would you be willing to share the letters you have received? If you do, please feel free to redact your name and street address, but if you would leave the City and State unredacted, it would be helpful. Thank you.

  7. OK, first of all, and please take absolutely no offense to this, but I know John Steele (or Paul Duffy, or Mark Lutz, or Joe Perea, or Brett Gibbs…you get the picture) would impersonate someone in a heartbeat to get what they want. That being said, how do I know who you say you are? I’m not going to just provide someone with letters like this, redacted or not, without THOROUGHLY vetting who they’re going to. Frankly, I don’t even want anyone knowing what case I was involved in (for obvious reasons), much less documents with my name redacted going out.

    My situation is by no means isolated as I can 99.9999% guarantee that Perea and Lutz are harrassing other Does who have been dismissed (I’ve heard that Lutz has been harrassing people post-dismissal involved in an AF Holdings case in California). That being said, Perea, who took over on this one after the case was dismissed, will not let up and I’m inclined to let this keep going and going and going because it’s become so absurd that when I come home from actual work (as opposed to what they do), I need a good laugh and Lutz gives me one at least once a week. Eventually, they’ll either sue me individually (probably not, but if that happens it’ll be a huge mistake on their part) or realize that they dismissed me and leave me alone.

    • Your reluctance to share information is certainly warranted. However, this site and DTD’s site, have become incredible resources, not just for people such as yourself, but the attorneys representing does as will.

      I did some checking for you.

      Mr. Yolofsky is representing a doe (doe 32) in the case below

      If you click on his name, in the post where he asked if you would send redacted documents, it will link to the firm where he is employed.

      • I was looking more for an IP address than a link to a website. Again, the impersonation angle and I wouldn’t put it past any of Steele’s lackeys to create a bogus an account on this blog and impersonate an officer of the court since we’ve established long ago that Steele’s outfit is morally (and hopefully soon to be financially) bankrupt. I’d be happy to provide redacted (sorry) versions of those demand letters, but I’d like to know exactly what you plan on doing with them first. I’ve actually thought about it and I’m pretty sure that I don’t give a crap if Perea sees the case number seeing as how he’s probably harassing the others who didn’t settle. I’ll get on it over the weekend.

        • @SJD/Anon – Thanks for the endorsements.

          @Anon – I’m happy to discuss with you my general intent for the demand letter. You can reach me at my office number, which is posted on my firm’s website. Additionally, you can cross-reference that information with the Florida Bar (

        • Mr. Yolofsky: Due to the Easter weekend and “busy” season, it’s going to have to wait until Monday. I’ll phone your office on Monday. What I’d like to do is copy the documents, redact them, scan them to PDF files and email them to you. I have a couple concerns (I assume Perea will see these but since there’s no attorney-client privilege attached, can he compel you to produce your source, etc.) If these letters can help your client, I’m all for it. I want his head on a proverbial stake.

    • Thanks for vouching for Mr. Yolofsky’s IP. I’m just paranoid as hell because I’ve never dealt with people this crooked who will go to any length to get their hands on money and believe me, I’ve dealt with some really really crooked people in my line of work (bank executives, shady financial planners, shady securities dealers, and anyone else who may have their hand in the proverbial cookie jar).

  8. That last link from Twitter feed is to a pretty massive judicial bodyslam on a troll. Great read. Good content for Motions to Quash in other courts.

    Until their trolling technology improves, their days and courts are numbered.

    • Is this a new tactic, getting an Illinois federal court (or any other federal court for that matter) to issue subpoenas for a lawsuit pending in another state’s federal district court? I don’t understand how it could be done without filing redundant and, hence, sanctionable lawsuits. It is an incredibly clever but SLEAZY tactic. I hope Mr. Yolofsky can weigh in on this as I am more than confused.

      • To add to my confusion all Boy Racer lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois have been closed for awhile (no Boy Racer lawsuits were filed elsewhere in Illinois that I could find). Was Perea lying to the judge?!

      • OK so I look into this issue and will answer my own question. Rule 45(a)(3)(B)of the FRCP allows an attorney to issue a subpoena from any federal district court (such as Illinois) as long as he is authorized to practice law in the federal district where the action is pending (Florida). So this rule allows Troll Perea to subpoena the ISP’s Doe info to Illinois where it can be analyzed by other Prenda attorneys and then the “settlement”calls can commence. As an added bonus for the Troll the Troll can make the sleazy argument (as was done in this case) that the Doe can only make an argument about the enforceability or conditions of the subpoena in Illinois even though the case is pending in Florida. Right now the Florida federal court is grappling with the issue of whether it can issue a protective order for the FL Does on a subpoena from the IL federal court. Both Prenda and Yolofsky briefed this issue and they are RECAPPED at the bottom of the docket which is here

        • BTW-I think the judge is equally incredulous and annoyed about the Illinois subpoena as I am judging by my post yesterday at 6:08 pm with his interim ruling. I truly hope the Doe prevails and his attorney has made some delicious lemonade the with the facts at hand but the FRCP seems to lean towards the Troll’s arguments even though you can tell the judge wants to slam the little prick.

        • I have a feeling Perea is gonna refile against me since he’s been harrassing the shit outta me even though my case is closed. I’d love to see a judge ask the common sense “Why the hell are you filing against this person a second time? You claimed you had enough to serve said defendant(s) the first time around.”

    • Yes! I follow this case but did not receive a message from WatchThatPage yet. I wrote about it 2 articles ago featuring Mr. Yolofsky’s elegant response: I hope judge read this document and enjoyed as we did. And yes, footnote #1 is promising. And I love that the judge chose this word “fortuitously” from numerous synonyms:

      Merriam-Webster (emphasis is mine):

      In its best-established sense, fortuitous means “happening by accident or chance.” Thus, a fortuitous meeting may have either fortunate or unfortunate consequences. For decades, however, the word has often been used in reference to happy accidents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s