First powerful defense in Prenda/Guava individual federal case

Not surprisingly, the news comes from Massachusetts, where Daniel Booth filed a joint motion for costs and stay of proceedings, and for protective order in Guava v. John Doe (MAD 12-cv-11880). Basically, this document, besides asking what its title implies, describes the very same instance of Prenda’s douchebaggery that I wrote about in the last Guava update, but does so using more details and a much better language.

I do not want to write a full-blown post and analyze this document. Firstly, so many events have been happening lately on the troll battleground: if I dive in the details of each of them, I will have to spend 24/7 on this issues, which is less than desirable during the holidays season. And secondly, documents written by Dan and Jason are always well articulated and, as a rule, do not require additional comments.

If you don’t know anything about Guava/Arte de Oaxaca scams (derived from the Lightspeed’s fraudulent lawsuit) and want to fully understand both the subject and the beauty of the following document, you should familiarize yourself with the history of these lawsuit abuses.

John Steele, during his drunken outbreak of rage thought he vindicated only Erin Russell and her clients. It never crossed this narcissistic moron’s mind that Erin also might be a local representative for someone else. In this case, “someone else” happened to be Booth Sweet, whose attorneys are several leagues above Massachusetts Prenda’s counsel Daniel Ruggiero, so I pity the poor scumbag: he will feel a lot of heat soon (he is currently being confronted by superior attorneys in several states). His masters, criminal masterminds from now being abandoned ship Prenda, are not in much better situation. Readers of this blog know this.



wordpress counter


16 responses to ‘First powerful defense in Prenda/Guava individual federal case

  1. Check and mate.

    Just delicious. I remember John gloating here in the forums about punish Erin’s clients for their insolance, and look where it got him.

    With Booth Sweet in the mix, and Prenda opening all their attorneys to personal liability with their LLC’s lapse of good standing, I like where I think this may be going. I would love to see Prenda get slapped with a fees award, try to weasel out by claiming they have dissolved, and then watch as Steele, Duffy and their local counsel are personally sued for it.

    Also nice to see the complete callout of the Guava complaints babbling about copyright violations without actually making a claim of copyright infringement. It will be good to see a judge address this copy-and-paste disaster.

  2. Just finished reading this motion and it is a thing of clarity and beauty. Favorite line and a clean summation of all Lightspeed Media Corp., Guava and Arte de Oaxaca complaints:

    “Guava’s tactical chicanery in misstating its claims, which would be unsupportable if properly pleaded, amounts to litigation in bad faith.”

  3. reading booth/sweet motions is way better than watching porn, these guys warm the heart with their consistent high quality and obvious knowledge. props to you gentlemen of the court for showing what real quality lawyers are all about. i hope this motion passes and quite frankly cannot wait to see rugerio’s response as that chump seems useless in every way. i expect some rubber stamped ad hominem attack written by steele and submitted through rug’s cmf log in.

  4. Hahaha – My favorite part… “Little did he know she was local counsel for somebody else.” The best attorneys are using local counsel these days.

    • here is my favorite part of that response

      “Movants’ second critical flaw is that they are not even defendants in this instant action. Plaintiff brought this action against an unknown defendant—John Doe. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff plans on amending its complaint to name and serve an actual defendant in this action, but until that time, the only party to this litigation is Plaintiff. Again, a defendant is defined as “a person sued is a civil proceeding or accused in a criminal proceeding” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Movants’ claims that they are defendants in this action are premature,”

      he basically says they are not suing anyone and so no one can contest anything in the case…..what the serious fuck???

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s