Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Samuel Perkins (Boston MA)
- Edward R. Molari (Boston, MA)
- BoothSweet LLP: Dan Booth and Jason Sweet (Cambridge MA)
- Nicholas Guerrera (North Andover MA)
- Catherine Rajwani (Northborough MA)
- Eric Menhart (Washington DC)
Relevant posts
- Copyright troll victim prevails in the first action against trolls (4/24/2014)
- Prenda’s local attorney Daniel Ruggiero denounces his employers (8/14/2013)
- Alexandra Capachietti of Burson and Levinson LLP is NOT a porno troll (4/6/2013)
- IBM to sue Marvin Cable for trademark infringement (4/1/2013)
- Booth Sweet LLP tells court a story of Prenda’s deception and abuse, asks for a bond to be posted by AF Holdings (2/2/2013)
- How do you call a lovemaking act without a partner? (1/23/2013)
- First powerful defense in Prenda/Guava individual federal case (12/17/2012)
- Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery (11/7/2012)
- A motion that made my day (10/9/2012)
- Another Massachusetts Judge issues a strong anti-extortion Memorandum and Order (10/4/2012)
- Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice (8/25/2012)
- Another day, another defendant is fighting back (8/20/2012)
- The Fifth Column: Marc Randazza attempts to sabotage defense against copyright trolls (8/6/2012)
- Lightspeed Media v. John Doe: a must-read motion written by a real IP attorney (7/13/2012)
- Do you still think that talking to plaintiff’s lawyer is a good idea? (10/14/2011)
- More light under the bridge (6/10/2011)
Fight © Trolls 
Seems like, after calling Perkins a Mountebank (looking forward to Perkins’ response to that!), Cable is doubling down in MA —5 new cases today (9/16) on RFC express with, by my count, a total of 643 Does. (At least, I assume it’s Cable since the cases are showing up per se, as they sometimes do at first).
Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the docs to be available in PACER for these types of suits? I’m interested in looking at one of these since I just signed up for a PACER account.
Looks like he is going after the Cape and the Kennedys all filed in Barnstable which is on Cape Cod…what a complete scumbag he now has 2000 people to extort money from….very sad….
His new cases are actually attempting to make a claim under state law for contributory infringement. Apparently MC does not keep up on what his colleagues in the troll industry are experiencing, because all his super chess moves are 6 months too late. Bold statements too – these suits say plain as day , that he is pretty much guaranteeing that if they did not download it themselves, they either a) profited from it b) let someone do it fully aware or c) are legally liable for the minor child that is doing it. Apparently Sorokins admonishment about being careful what kind of accusations he makes and whether or not they open him to sanctions has not quite sunk in.
How are you getting this info? I’d like to see the complaint on one or more of these. Is there somewhere I can go to look at this? rcfexpress isn’t showing anything. Thanks.
Pacer. Just logging in and looking at the complaints filed – very bold statements about secondary liability that have been completely shredded by judges in numerous cases lately. Really bad timing for this move on his part, as now there is a heap of decisions against it, and literally zero for it.
from his reply he has a staff of 1 plus him…and 2000 cases do not judges say what the hell finish what you start first he is up to 42 cases none of which one person has been served
Ok this is hilarious. The MGL statue he is using for parental liability.
Section 85G. Parents of an unemancipated child under the age of eighteen and over the age of seven years shall be liable in a civil action for any willful act committed by said child which results in injury or death to another person or damage to the property of another, which shall include any damages resulting from a larceny or attempted larceny of property as set forth in section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, damage to cemetery property or damage to any state, county or municipal property or damage as set forth in sections one hundred and twenty-six A and one hundred and twenty-six B of chapter two hundred and sixty-six. This section shall not apply to a parent who, as a result of a decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, does not have custody of such child at the time of the commission of the tort. Recovery under this section shall be limited to the amount of proved loss or damage but in no event shall it exceed five thousand dollars.
looked at IP and times…all are May and beyond…looks like they will just keep adding new cases every quarter and to keep stream of settlements coming in
one of the ones I looked at (new one) had some february entries. that will be hilarious since comcast only keeps records for 6 months.
“Recovery under this section shall be limited to the amount of proved loss or damage but in no event shall it exceed five thousand dollars.”
Basically, PROVED actual loss, which is the cost of the DVD/video/download. And that’s if it can actually be PROVED 🙂 Bye Bye statutory damages.
Cable is such a fuck tard
Besides the fact that the damages permissible to award under that law are ridiculously low compared to the copyright statues, and besides the fact that it would be impossible to prove actual damages anywhere close to that ridiculous low number anyway, and BESIDES the fact that it’s been decided over and over and over again that federal copyright statute trumps state laws every time, I don’t see how on earth you could even begin to associate that law with something like copyright infringement when it’s specifically about larceny or vandalism. He’s just overreaching to try and scare more people into settling. One of these new cases has it’s motions assigned to Sorokin. Can’t wait to see what he thinks of this one when the motions start rolling in.
RFC lists 5 new porn trolling cases (New Sensations, SBO Pictures, Media Products, Exquisite Multimedia) filed yesterday in Massachusetts, with 593 Does total. No attorney is listed yet.
However, Marvin N. Cable, of Law Offices of Marvin N. Cable, has been lawyer for all these porn purveyor plaintiffs previously.
just recap’d the new cases so far, all cable’s. looks like he’s gone full retard
http://ia601509.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146585/gov.uscourts.mad.146585.docket.html
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146586/gov.uscourts.mad.146586.docket.html
http://ia601508.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146587/gov.uscourts.mad.146587.docket.html
http://ia601500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146588/gov.uscourts.mad.146588.docket.html
http://ia600804.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146589/gov.uscourts.mad.146589.docket.html
Only did one complaint as the others are carbon copies, should have As for all of them.
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.146588.1.0.pdf
remember not to feed the trolls
“Never go full retard” hahaha. He’s also asserting negligence…which is complete bullshit since LMH v. Tabora said no negligence and AF Holdings v. Hatfield said no negligence. Cable has lost his shit.
I’ve just read the complaint and found this a little odd:
“7. The Motion Picture is an original work that may be copyrighted under United States
law. The Motion Picture is the subject of a valid Certificate of Registration issued by the
United States Copyright Office, which is Copyright Registration No. PA0001780476, dated
February 9, 2008; and, Plaintiff owns the aforementioned Registration. ”
There seems to be something wrong with this date. I’ve looked it up online and the movie didn’t even exist in 2008. It says “Date of Creation: 2011/ Date of Publication: 2011-12-21”. The date of registration is February 10, 2012. Kind of makes you wonder whether Cable is a moron or just not good with numbers.Wrong year and wrong day. Oh well, at least he got the month right…
It’s because he cuts and pastes his filings. Probably one of the others had that date and he just forgot to change it. I’ve seen filings that say Plaintiff for <> under his signature and other errors like that. That’s what happen swhen you think you can manage 40 lawsuits at the same time by yourself.
Is it just me or do you need a name before issuing a summons? “
I was under that impression too. I’ve seen a summons for one Doe but an entire class of Does? Cable is fucking nuts. I guess he’s trying to recoup that $200k+ he dropped on his shitty JD, plus padding his wallet for when Perkins comes and steals his lunch money.
don’t all of his cases say that? even on old dockets I see that line
http://ia600709.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.mad.144202/gov.uscourts.mad.144202.docket.html
I thought that was just the demand for ID from the ISP
In lots of these cases the summonses are generated automatically upon the filing of a complaint. It does’nt mean anything at this stage.
From 1:12-cv-10760-FDS (Third Degree Films v. Does 1-72)
Document 22, filed 09/17/12
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Enlargement of Time for Service
“Plaintiff has shown good cause, following the expiration of the 120th day … The time that it has taken to identify and serve the Doe defendants is attributable to the inherent difficulty of learning the identity of the anonymous internet users who are infringing Plaintiff’s copyright.”
I find it interesting that Mr. Cable was posting on twitter as if he was a champion against trolls.
Interesting that those posts stop as of the end of April when these case began to hit the Mass. courts
Strange, he also tweets about bi-polar disorder.
hahahhahaaaaa
cable already gets an order to show cause in one of his new cases new sensations vs 201 1:12-cv-11720
its the case he drew Sorokin on, but Sorokin didn’t even have to do anything- the presiding judge Stearns did!
http://ia601509.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146585/gov.uscourts.mad.146585.docket.html
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.146585.8.0.pdf
you suck cable
don’t feed the trolls
It gets better, Cable also drew Judge Stearns on another 9-16 filing, Exquisite Media v. Does 1-46 (12-cv-1724). I have not checked to see if the judge issued an OTC in that case as well.
Cable’s doing the “issue subpoenas from other federal district courts” bullshit like Duffy/Perea.
This one’s an objection to the case, extremely odd, but has a subpoena from Missouri’s Eastern District on page 3 and production was to be sent to some address in St. Louis (REALLY weird)…
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.144202.10.0.pdf
Then there’s this one from the Northern District of Texas, subpoena on P4, production goes to a place in Lubbock…
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.144202.11.1.pdf
Both of locations are operated by some outfit called “Westwood RL” which I can’t find shit about. Looked up “Westwood” on Dun & Bradstreet and it found a business just called “Westwood” in Westbrook, MA but I can’t find anything about the nature of the business.
This could be good news – can someone with recap ‘liberate’ this file for the rest of us?
New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 201
2012-09-25: Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 6 Motion for Discovery “Denied, without prejudice to refile after the court decides on the show cause response.”
Here ya go http://ia601509.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146585/gov.uscourts.mad.146585.docket.html
I’d like to know more about this – I thought cable had until 10/5 to file a response to the show cause order. I don’t see a response on that order nor can I see the judge’s denied order. also wtf why are these new cases getting action and all the old ones are languishing on the docket and the settlements are rolling in? Regardless, fuck cable, and thanks to any troll-loathing judges. I hope as Raul said this will all be an unpleasant memory come thanksgiving
Here’s another: Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72 was filed back in 2012-04-28, but it got assigned to a new judge (Saylor) two months ago who just filed an order to show cause: see http://tinyurl.com/bug2nzy
A nice example of the “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”???
I think Cable’s days in MA are numbered…
a dozen or so cases were assigned to Saylor yesterday and he immediately put in show cause orders on all of them (transferred away from magistrate’s due to consent forms not being signed by all parties)
What’s up with the motion for reconsideration for TDF v. Does 1-72 on 1/9 – anyone know what it says?
I RECAPPED it but Pacer and RECAP have been hinky all day so here is it in its entirety:
JOHN DOE 1’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
John Doe 1 respectfully requests that this Court vacate its January 3, 2013 Order allowing Third Degree Films, Inc. (“Third Degree”) to serve summons because the Order contradicts a previous order of this Court, and will prejudice John Doe 1 if allowed to stand.
On October 4, 2012 this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Docket Entry 26, Boal, M.J.). Magistrate Judge Boal indicated in her Show Cause Order that a subscriber to an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) is not the proper defendant, and that notices provided to the ISP and subscribers by Third Degree referencing the subscriber as a defendant were improper. Third Degree was ordered to show cause within 14 days why the Court should not quash the subpoenas issued in the case. Third Degree has never filed a response to Magistrate Judge Boal’s Order to Show Cause.
In addition to the Order to Show Cause, Third Degree was specifically prohibited from “using in any way, including but not limited to settlement, the identities of subscribers it has already obtained (or does obtain) as a result of the subpoena process, except that within three days, TDF shall serve a copy of this Order upon all of the subscribers whose identities it has Case 1:12-cv-10760-FDS Document 33 Filed 01/09/13 Page 1 of 3
{Practice Areas/LIT/24276/00001/A2183030.DOC} 2
learned to date (and such further subscribers, if any, it learns of in the future as a result of the already issued subpoenas).”
Third Degree has failed to serve a copy of Magistrate Judge Boal’s Order to Show Cause on any of the ISPs, or the subscribers whose identity’s it had already learned. Despite Third Degree’s disregard for the October 4, 2012 Order to Show Cause, it has now requested permission to name a subscriber as a defendant in this case, without first explaining whether there is a proper nexus between a subscriber and a defendant. Third Degree has failed to serve a copy of the Show Cause Order upon John Doe 1. Furthermore, allowing Third Degree to serve a summons based upon information obtained through the subpoena is a use that has been expressly prohibited by this Court. It would be unfair and prejudicial to John Doe 1 to allow service of the summons and force the expenditure of time and resources in defending a Complaint in which this Court has already determined that, “while early discovery may be proper and necessary…the Court found that it must also take into consideration the privacy interests of potentially innocent subscribers.” (October 4, 2012 Show Cause Order).
WHEREFORE, John Doe 1 respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its allowance of Third Degree’s request to serve summons.
Case 1:12-cv-10760-FDS Document 33 Filed 01/09/13 Page 2 of 3
Basically, Troll Cable is an overreaching douchebag who is ignoring previous judicial orders.
I’m working with a well-known/respected attorney and have a chance to put would could potentially be a dagger in one of Cable’s cases. So tempting to spend the $1k to give it a shot, but it’s hard to justify with the way Cable’s cases have been going (i.e. nowhere…spineless settlement farms). It would be incredible, though, to point out all the inconsistencies (read: flat out LIES) coming from Cable’s filings and potentially draw sanctions. I wish money wasn’t an issue!
@Doe–Eyed-Deer You have presented a mystery that might help others which I am going to try to solve but need a hint or three. When you say “inconsistencies” are you referring to Cable’s disconnect between infringers and subscribers or do I need to guess again?
Raul, do you have a public email address?
FYI this is doe_eyed-deer. I’d rather not post some of this info publicly just yet until someone like you has taken a look at it.
Can you send it to SJD? sophisticatedjanedoe@yahoo.com
ummmmm 3 new individual named cases came up today….. and its not our friend marvie marv
Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-11797
File Date: Thursday, September 27, 2012
Plaintiff: AF Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel G. Ruggiero of Law Offices of Daniel G. Ruggiero
Defendant: Sandipan Chowdury
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Court: Massachusetts District Court
have yet to recap any dox but do you guys think this is another co-conspirators case?
i hope these ppl hit back with some slander charges
who does this ruggerio fucker think he is?
wait a minute
AF HOLDINGS????
has this guava shit spread this far north? I thought guavas didnt grow up here!
See the comments about Ruggiero under the John Steele and Pennsylvania threads. Daniel G. Ruggiero is your typical troll– he went to a shitty law school and has only been out for about five years. Google him, and you will see his employment hasn’t been exactly steady, and he has little or no experience doing IP law. The NYC address on his website is a UPS Store. He is really based out of Massachusetts. He sells himself based on the fact that he is licensed in seven states– which is very unusual. He has filed Prenda lawsuits against named defendants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and now Massachusetts. Most of them have been AF Holdings cases, and the names seem to have been culled from AF Holdings vs. Does 1-1140 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01274) case, which was voluntarily dismissed seven months ago.
Did anyone notice the update today in case 12-cv-10944. Looks like one of the Does made a Motion for Sanctions against Cable since he never showed up for a hearing.
Thanks. Recapped and tweeted.
whats all this mean to a doe in 12-cv-10944 that has due to lack of understanding chosen to do nothing?
Another Doe, who is also a lawyer, filed for sanctions…same reason. He signed his name on the motion with “(name), Esquire, MFA” which is a violation of the so many unwritten rules.
In Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29 (12-cv-10805) Judge Sorokin today set a hearing for Friday:
“Full docket text:
Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion. The Court will hold a hearing on the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery (Docket # 43) on October 5, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24, before Ch. Mag. Judge Leo T. Sorokin. Counsel shall be prepared to address the questions of (1) what information the Plaintiff already possesses regarding the alleged infringers and (2) what further discovery is required in order to enable it to name the infringers identified in the Complaint.(Chernetsky, James)”
Perkins v. Troll Cable, should be good.
More MA judge motion today as Cable’s initial cases get moved off the magistrates dockets. More of Saylor and Stearns asking Cable to show cause, Young severing outright, Sorokin calling hearings. Things are looking up.
Judge Stearns grants Doe 8’s (Nicholas Guerrera) motion to dismiss within an hour of submission, severs Doe from the case. Also orders to show cause why others shouldn’t be dismissed. No document (electronic entry) Docket was recapped/refreshed – will be available soon.
Proud for MA and happy for MA Does.
3 New copy-write cases filed in Massachusetts today. Very nerve wracking
Can you tell me where you saw this? I can’t see anything in rfcexpress unless they were named individually?
Yes, sorry. They were 3 cases against named individuals.
now at 5
now at 6 with one closed
now at 7
8 with one closed
This now sits at 11 named defendents plus 1 closed case.. is the most named suits broght so far…this seems like such a gamble as they now have to turnover evidence and answer questions on science…I can see Booth, Sweet and Perkins saying hire me hire me….i want to get em… lol either way I think you now are seeing were this is going they have to answer to judges and since they never file they can now say see we filed….
Anybody else notice… like in Illinois they are naming defentents but spreading it around to other Plaintiffs….No Plaintiffs are going all in, in any state. Hummm. Take Rag-goo for example. You are telling me he only has 1 or 2 names to sue in court per plaintiff. Seems like they are trying to save face with judges and keep up the fear smear campaign. Sorry trolls, I will keep my money.
all from troll Daniel G. Ruggiero
I have to believe that Ruggiero is going to get himself in trouble with what he is doing. No reputable attorney– especially one who doesn’t appear to know anything about this area of the law– would file this many lawsuits in this many jurisdictions this quickly. As we know, he is just filing on behalf of Prenda. However, he should be disclosing that in the pleadings. I am sure they are going to make some money off of all these complaints because people will settle, but I don’t think it will end well for Daniel Ruggiero.
He’s gotta be violating ethical standards by filing so many suits creating an unmaintainable caseload. Duffy has an unmaintainable caseload, just look at the fuck ups he’s been making lately. Not showing up to court multiple times, even having one case dismissed for want of prosecution.
my bad 4 counted one from 9/27
http://boothsweet.com/news/copyright-trolls-beware/
So Judge Young severed and dismissed all but 1 Doe from 1:12-cv-10761-WGY. Are we expecting him to do the same for all the other Marvin Cable cases on his docket as well, or does a Doe in those cases specifically need to file a motion for Young to sever?
It is a safe bet to assume that Judge Young will sever all Does but Doe 1 from any other Cable lawsuits he is presiding over.
Can someone fill me in why Does 2+ get severed, but Doe 1 doesn’t. I’ve seen this many time before and I’m curious. When the list gets cut down to Doe 1, do they name that Doe?
Because if the Court were to sever Doe 1 as well, then they’re effectively dismissing the complaint, as there would be no defendants left.
On 10-2 in Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47 (12-cv-10761) in a mighty 27 page Memorandum & Order Judge Young severed Does 2-47 citing “fairness concerns and inefficiencies at trial, the potential prejudice from what seems to be a developing pattern of extortionate settlement demands, and the evasion of thousands of dollars of filing fees.” http://ia700609.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143653/gov.uscourts.mad.143653.31.0.pdf Hat tip to Booth & Sweet!
Docket is here http://ia700609.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143653/gov.uscourts.mad.143653.docket.html
Can someone PACERize the Memorandum & Order (11/7) in Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72? I’m hoping Judge Saylor came to the same conclusion as Judge Young did!
Another order to show cause by a different judge in case 12-cv-30083
More Judges following in the path today in MA. Fantastic week for MA does. Jennifer Boal today ordering Cable to show cause why she should not sever and dismiss in light of Sorokins decisions and Cables continuing use of the terminology “you have been sued”, and forbidding him from using any data received in her cases until she’s made a decision on his response. Just sad to see how many have paid up already. Every time I see another voluntary dismissal order it makes me 😦
I’m confused about what Daniel Ruggiero is doing. I checked one case and it looks like he’s a Mass lawyer, but suing an individual doe in Connecticut? Is he picking individual does out of previosuly dismissed group cases? Do these have anything do do with the Marvin Cable cases?
No, they are from different Mafioso groups (Marvin – CEG, Ruggiero – Prenda). To the best of my knowledge these 2 gangs do not cooperate.
Ruggiero is a bottom-of-the-barrel lawyer. The way he markets himself is that he is licensed in seven states. Therefore, he is able to file cases in all seven of them even though he is based in Massachusetts.
Will Cable be able to show cause?
I highly doubt it.
Sorry for being so clueless, but if Cable is unable to show cause and the case gets dropped, won’t he just be able to sue individually based upon the names he was given by the ISPs? Or would he need to subpoena the ISPs again to get that data?
Based on past data, CEG doesn’t, but who knows. He could. He has been promising to do so for some recalcitrant does in his Patrick Collins cases for months now and still not delivered, so who knows. He also has only received settlements on a fraction of the does whose info they got – they can only handle so many cases.
I don’t think so…the judge would not reall ok you got 10 names but the other 17 have not reported in on so go for the 10…it would be nope you cannot use any and if he did he would be in real hot water
Cable has filed his first show cause response today. I’m flabbergasted. He is comparing himself to John Adams, defending the soldiers in the boston massacre, bravely taking a huge blow to his reputation as a lawyer in order to do the right thing.
Which case did Cable show cause?
1:12-cv-11720-RGS
Wow, it is true – Mr. Cable is comparing his plight of suing copyright infringes to John Adams defending the British Troops involved in the Boston Massacre. Kind of shocking if you ask me.
I recapped the document.
What can I say: poorly chosen strategy of debunking a single case quoted by the judge. If I was a judge I would play cat-and-mouse with a miserable Marvin and mad him to debunk dozens of recent rulings. One by one.
Cases that Cable quotes are old.
He brazenly lies in 3.3
He quotes Randazza.
He compares himself with Adams. Defending British soldiers is one thing, but wouldn’t Adams’s reputation would be forever lost if he dared to assert that “Dirty Little Schoolgirl Stories #4” is a useful work of art and subsequently sent out extortion letters?
Judge won’t buy it.
I can’t stop giggling about the comparison to Adams. Straight up giggling like a kid.
Just above the Adams comparison is this:
“this Counsel (who is the same Counsel here), as opposed to
many others around the country, is one of the most ethical and best to deal with. Plaintiff can
nearly guarantee that every defense counsel that has dealt with plaintiffs counsel would agree,
even those who submit fierce motions against plaintiff.”
I wonder if Samuel “mountebank” Perkins would agree?
These cases seem a little odd (at least looking at the one who’s complaint has been recapped):
http://ia601500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.146588/gov.uscourts.mad.146588.docket.html
Filed on 9/16/12 against 46 does with alleged infingement dates from 2/14/12 to 8/18/2012. Going back 7 months seems like a long time in these cases, never mind the 6 month span of hit dates (hardly an argument for joinder). Makes you wonder if they had some ulterior motive for filing these, like repeat IP addresses from the earlier cases where they’ve been taking heat or something.
What the hell is wrong with this guy? Comparing suing 201 Doe defendants for downloading porn to John Adams’ defense of British soldiers for the Boston Massacre over 230 years ago is just…it’s bat shit fucking crazy. Where does he come up with this? I’m not creative, I admit it, but come on…I don’t know anyone who would come up with something so convoluted as to compare suing people for copyright infringement to defending a group of soldiers accused of murdering colonists during a period of civil unrest and, as it turns out, preceding a revolution. All I gotta say is what’s next? Comparing himself to a DEVGRU operator on the bin Laden mission? Oh, no, Steele would do that.
Thanks SJD for the recap and update- you’re the best
looks like cable needs help with his mail merge software and general computer skills and might need to CHECK THE FUCKING DATES ON HIS SHIT
“On September 25, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause…”
“Date: September 18, 2012, Respectfully submitted,”
lol what an inattentive oblivious toolbox, that response should be stricken due to unprecedented dumbfuckery and douchebagitude
“douchebagitude” you sir have created one of my new favorite words.
*Crickets* Chirp, Chirp, anything going on in MA regarding Troll Cable and others?
Did you this recent post by SJD? https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02/02/booth-sweet-llp-tells-court-a-story-of-prendas-deception-and-abuse-asks-for-a-bond-to-be-posted-by-af-holdings/
Oh and, because he’s a douchebag, Cable is suing a guy who does own a computer. http://ia600407.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mad.144199/gov.uscourts.mad.144199.23.0.pdf
Cable is also in hot water with Judge Boal. http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/combatzone_does1-84_121126Order.pdf
Yes, Cable has a lawsuit filed against him
A couple of points I want to points in his argument that I would like to point out.
1) He says that not all Does want to be severed, citing the Righthaven cases:
“Many of Righthaven’s defendants chose to settle
rather than come up with the high costs of individualized litigation. As a result,
many of the cases were not challenged in court, despite Righthaven’s later-
demonstrated lack of standing.
Of those suits that did go before a judge, Righthaven did not win a single case.
Every district where Righthaven brought suit determined that Righthaven
lacked standing to bring copyright infringement claims. ”
I am right in my understanding of this statement that he is saying that he acknowledges that these cases have no standing?
2) Response to the Concern of ill-litigation Conduct:
“Counsel for Plaintiff has stipulated on the record in another
similar case that Counsel is willing to submit pleadings under seal in order to protect
individuals privacy; many of the voluntary dismissals that are submitted to Court are
settlements of zero dollars…”
Is it really plausible that any attorney, working on behalf of his clients to extort a settlement, would actually settle for “zero dollars”. I like how he offers these statements but does not provide proof by citing cases to substantiate his response
3) His claim that other attorneys consider him to be one of the most ethical counselors in Mass.
“It has even been stated on the record in
another Court in a similar case during a hearing (transcript for that hearing is currently being
worked on by stenographer) that this Counsel (who is the same Counsel here), as opposed to
many others around the country, is one of the most ethical and best to deal with. Plaintiff can
nearly guarantee that every defense counsel that has dealt with plaintiffs counsel would agree,
even those who submit fierce motions against plaintiff.”
To which case is he referring to? As for the rest of his claim in this statement, I would believe that Attorney Perkins would have a response.
I am reminded of the recent Presidential debate where Romney threw out volleys of claims, and was then spanked by the fact-finders. Would any judge seriously consider a response in answer to an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE where an attorney doesn’t provide citation for fact-checking?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER Setting Hearing on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery (Docket # 43). Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for the hearing scheduled for October 5, 2012. The Court has re-scheduled this hearing for October 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24. Plaintiff’s Counsel is directed to check his email notices from the Court on a daily rather than weekly basis. (Chernetsky, James) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
What a Noob!
I posted about it last night 🙂
Anyone know if Cable showed up for the hearing today?
The last time the docket was updated (on MAD’s CM/ECF) was the 9th when Booth filed the motion for sanctions. I’ll check later tonight, it should be updated by then. If Cable showed up, the clerk will have to file whatever he filed. Part of me hopes he showed up because Sorokin threatened him with sanctions if he pulled this shit again and he did. If he didn’t show up, then it’s likely that Sorokin’s head detached from his neck and he or O’Toole would’ve issued issued a scathing order.
He did show up. Don’t know the details, only the fact.
Maybe to make the “Meier Argument” that goes like this: “All other trolls may be avaricious, predatory dickheads but, Your Honor, I am not – trust me.” His semantical bullshit cannot fade away fast enough.
Prenda in Massachusetts. Guava v. John Doe (1:12-cv-11880-FDS) filed in MAD on 10/9 by Ruggiero. Assigned to Judge Saylor…this oughtta be good. Docket here…
http://ia601500.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.mad.147048/gov.uscourts.mad.147048.docket.html
again they are alleging copyright infringement without actually claiming copyright infringement
“5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because, upon information and belief, they either reside in or committed copyright infringement within the State of Massachusetts.”
all the “local” guava claims have is handy little statement that will pre-empt ALL of the state claims so then all that is left is the cfaa claim, where they don’t even say anything other than “you stole some stuff from someplace”
if someone robbed my house and accidentally dropped a wallet, and then i came home and found that wallet, and then waited 6 months, without ever filing a police report, and then sued the guy whose license was in the wallet. (without considering the possibility that the wallet was stolen from it’s original owner, after all thieves steal stuff) and all i put in the filing was that someone stole my stuff without even so much as giving an address or a list of stolen items. do you think that would fly? no!, and yet that is what all of these cases are like.
these people are a drain on society and need to be shut down.
Their CFAA claim is crap for reasons already discussed. The rest of the claims are supplemental to the CFAA claim, if the CFAA claim goes, so goes everything else. This is why I think Judge Howell in DCD is gonna go completely apeshit on Duffy at the first hearing, assuming she actually is a stickler for procedure rather than being biased…and I believe she will stick to her guns because she’s already got a case in front of the Circuit Court of Appeals for DC District. She doesn’t wanna go do a 180 and side with Duffy, which would give, well, everyone a ton of ammo against her personally as well as any of her decisions. I mean shit, he didn’t even submit an exhibit of IP(s), but references the exhibit in the complaint.
Good point but they’re within the statute of limitations. There needs to be some sort of federal statute making it a criminal offense to file a lawsuit for, well, anything, if you willingly permit it to happen. “I left my door unlocked, let the guy in, he stole my TV, now I’m suing him for conversion.” Until then…let’s just hope judges say “get this shit out of my courtroom.” I’d love to see Duffy say “plaintiff had no idea this was occurring.” The hell “plaintiff” didn’t. Oh, wait, Duffy isn’t the one who lies to judges’ faces. I’ve read that job has allegedly been outsourced (or insourced depending on how you look at it) to The Pirate Master. No one leaves their door unlocked and lets people break into their house, same thing goes with a computer system. You find out your shit’s been hacked, you fix it, immediately, but it’s not fixed because plaintiff claims it occurs to this day.
Has Cable issue responses to JUSTIFY CAUSE order on his other cases? The order for 12-cv-30085-MAP was issued on 10/4. It is now 10/11. With an order for a response within 14 days, what happens if he doesn’t respond by 10/18? Is the case dropped with prejudice?
On another note, there is an interesting news item that reports that a Pennsylvania State judge has ordered that the case proceed to trial instead of settling for several thousand dollars. The judge appears to be testing to see if it is indeed extortion. I would be interested to see if the case moves forward or is dropped by the PLAINTIFF.
Judge Stearns severed New Sensations v. Does 1-201 (comparing himself to “John Adams” while likely buzzed on Sam Adams) case in an electronic order. I’d like to think it was because he didn’t believe that Cable deserved a written order after comparing himself to John Adams 😛
“2012-10-10 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER severing all defendants but Doe 1 entered. Beneath the cloud of rhetoric, New Sensations, Inc., raises nothing in its Response beyond conjecture to suggest that these defendants are appropriately joined together. The court accepts counsel’s representation of good faith in attempting to litigate these cases. However, under the civil rules, in fairness to all involved, including the court, these cases should be litigated and defended in separate causes of action. Therefore, the court will dismiss without prejudice defendants 2 – 201. (Zierk, Marsha)”
Judge Young severs all does but #1 in his cases today. Poor Marvin’s cases are falling apart
Judge enters ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for case 12-30085-MAP. This appears to be a duplicate order for the same case that was issued on 10/4. In the prior order, the judge ordered an answer 14 days after the order’s filing, which would be this week (10/18). With this new duplicate order, does this mean that Attorney Marvin Cable has been granted a 14 day extension?
Yeah she did it in all the cases she is referred to. (Boal) not sure why. Maybe she feels bad for him since all the other magistrates are slashing his cases one by one, or maybe she just has more important things to do than keep track of MC’s bullshit.
The cases say all does but #1 are dismissed without prejudice pending Marvin filing individual cases within 30 days. Does this mean that after 30 days if I am not named then I am 100% in the clear?
No. He has three years to file against any IP as long as it isn’t dismissed twice. Does that “twice” rule apply to all states? Anyway, he could subpoena the ISP again if he wants as long as it is within the three year period. Also, if your ISP has purged your info he may not be able to get the info anyway. Verizon keeps logs for 1.5 to 2 years.
FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(B) aka the “two strikes” rule applies (for the purposes of this discussion) if you were dismissed by the plaintiff for whatever reason (other than with prejudice) then essentially the same suit was re-filed, were dismissed again by the plaintiff for whatever reason then they cannot touch you a third time and it’s treated as if the you (defendant) are the prevailing party. This applies in federal court for previously dismissed federal or state actions. It’s part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so it doesn’t matter if you’re in Massachusetts or California, as long as you’re in federal court when the second dismissal occurs, it applies. Most states (all I think) have adopted this, in some way, shape, or form. Then there’s Rule 41(b) which, in the context of these cases, would apply if a defendant gets a dismissal under Rule 4(m), then the troll is boned because Rule 41(b) precludes re-filing due to involuntary dismissal (exceptions apply but not for the purposes of this discussion).
So if a troll can still name me individually up to 3 years after I am severed from the larger group, then what is the advantage to being severed at all? And what is the significance of the 30 day window? What advantages do I gain after 30 days? Marvin already has my IP address and name from the original mass request so it’s not like he needs to re-request my info from my ISP…
The advantage is he may not ever sue you individually. He’ll still try to get money from you as long as he can since he has your info. That’s their main goal anyway. Get the info and harass you into paying. However, if he sues you individually and you fight via an attorney and it gets dismissed again, then you’re in the clear (as far as that movie is concerned). How much it costs to fight depends on how far the troll is willing to pursue.
If you hire an attorney because you didn’t do it and sign an affidavit to that effect, the troll has to decide if you’re telling the truth and whether it’s worth pursuing. I assume the 30 day window means you would be dismissed without prejudice (meaning he can file against you again ) and that you’re no longer part of a current lawsuit. If he wants to take you to court he has to file again. Although, as it is obvious on this site they want to harass you as long as possible to try and avoid any unnecessary court costs (no matter how little). Any costs eat into their profit.
From Ray Beckerman’s excellent blog:
In Combat Zone v. Does 1-84, a Boston, Massachusetts, case, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal has ordered plaintiff to show cause why Does 2-84 should not be severed.
Click to access combatzone_does1-84_121015OrderToShowCauseSeverance.pdf
Order nods at earlier ones of Judges Stearns and Young.
Seems like the judges in the good ol Bay State are lock step and consistent 🙂
Judge Woodlock severs all his cases yesterday
1:12-cv-10757-DPW Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 33 filed 04/28/12
1:12-cv-10759-DPW Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 30 filed 04/28/12
1:12-cv-10803-DPW New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 46 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10948-DPW Celestial, Inc. v. Does 1 – 28 filed 05/26/12
ELECTRONIC Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: Status Conference held on 10/23/2012; Court Orders all remaining defendant’s to be DISMISSED without prejudice in this matter and are Ordered SEVERED; however, defendant Joe no. 1 shall remain; the plaintiff shall file a status report in aid of judgment by 10/26/12; 8 Motion to Quash, 9 Motion to Dismiss, Quash or Sever, 11 Motion to Quash, 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend and Serve Complaint and 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint are FOUND MOOT. (Court Reporter: Brenda Hancock at 617-439-3214.)(Attorneys present: Cable for the pltff; Perkins for the deft) (Lovett, Jarrett) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
Quick question. I was severed from one of these cases and my computer has been non functional for months. Do I need to hold onto it in case I am named individually and they want to forensically examine it? Thank you
if you never received a letter demanding the preservation, it’s a no brainer: get rid of it without any reservation. If you did receive a demand letter or any other communication requesting that you preserve the “evidence,” you still may discard your PC, but I would consult a lawyer first: it is a gray area.
Does this help if ISP already released info to troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzGWvZAd228
http://ia601206.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143790/gov.uscourts.mad.143790.docket.html
Looks like Marvie Marv took a little bit of a turd today on 3:12-cv-30085 by issuing his SECOND response to order to show cause TWO DAYS LATE due to ‘Sandy’ and the ‘sand in his vag’
More boilerplate bullshit response and trying to paint himself in a good light – no more hilarious historical misappropriations tho from what I can see
He even attached a sample of a returned subpoena info sheet from cockmast in which they say ‘duhhh yeah we dont have records from February anymore marvie’, the dick cant even get landscape and portrait right let alone properly block out those poor does info
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.67.3.pdf
I hope all your cases get severed marvie marv, i hope your balls get severed too
and the funky bunch HATES YOU!!!!
I can say ONE good thing about Marv: he has impeccable penmanship. Look at the signatures on his documents … absolutely beautiful.
Agreed! I noticed this too! He can be a very famous tattoo master in a jail! Well, I don’t wish him to use his skill that way, and don’t wish him (and almost anybody else) to see the insides of an incarceration institution, where 8th Amendment is abandoned.
In 12-cv-30085 on 10-10 Judge Boal ordered Troll Cable to show cause why his subpoenas should not be quashed for containing lies and she prohibited him from using Doe info in any manner including settlements. http://ia701206.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143790/gov.uscourts.mad.143790.64.0.pdf So what does the greedy troll do? He settles a lawsuit with Doe 80 on 11-25 in apparent contempt of the judge’s express prohibition against settling with Does!!!! http://ia601206.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143790/gov.uscourts.mad.143790.69.0.pdf The next day Judge Boal calls Cable to the carpet to explain the douchebaggery http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/combatzone_does1-84_121126Order.pdf Popcorn time; lets see how Cable tries to weasel out of this one, should be fun 🙂
Yes, I tweeted about it yesterday, but apparently it is a bigger news, so thanks for commemorating it here.
In other news, BoothSweet moves to dismiss 1:12-cv-10535-WGY in which judge gave the troll 30 days to file individual actions, but it’s already 45 days passed (emphasis mine):
Could anyone post a list of the Marvin Cable cases where all does But #1 have been severed? Thanks in advance!
I was looking at the pacer record for my case and it says “Date Terminated: 10/31/12” but there doesn’t appear to be any recent filings or orders. Does this mean anything?
just got one for af holdings llc v does 1 – 140… Of course on that court docket af holding voluntarily dismissed 02/29.. no this isnt wasnt me .. letter demands 6k from prenda law advice? comment?
okay got our first letter in almost a year today from Ruggiero in Mass. we don’t live there but now I am getting a little nervous. He is demanding more money then the first time, double the amount. says if we don’t fill out the form to withdraw the money then he will file a suit with us. Has he actually filed suits and what is his record in court?
Relax. Breathe. Repeat.
I’m not saying he’s not going to sue … anything can happen, right? Hell, a meteor can always land on your house, or you can get run down while crossing the street.
But demanding money on a deadline, then demanding MORE money on a LATER deadline is a part of the standard shakedown. They want to have you surrender your money willingly. You need to be scared for that to happen.
Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the same letters, and nothing’s happened. If you decide to settle, you should do it with a clear head and a lawyerly type over your shoulder. Don’t let the bastards freak you out with nasty letters, phone calls, deadlines and dollar values.
Relax. Breathe. Repeat. Think it through.
Though, I think you’d be a damn fool to settle with the likes of Ruggiero.
If you happen to have a demand letter from Prenda signed by Duffy and sent to your Massachusetts address, I would be happy to see it. You can either redact it yourself (But if should display “Massachusetts”) or trust me in doing it. You may tremendously help. I’m not interested in Ruggiero-signed letters at this moment.
Has Marvin Cable gone into hiding with these cases? Seems like nothing new is being reported.
So true, I have checked pacer and for many of his cases, there has been no activity for months. Very strange.
Someone got a letter within the last few weeks threatening telling them they either had been served or would be served soon. Funny thing is it is outside the extension timeline given to him by the judge, so he wouldn’t be able to serve unless he filed for another extension. The letter was pretty amateur looking – probably trying some last minute scare tactics to eek out settlements before the hammer of justice hits him where it hurts.
See item #52 on the RECAP link. Judge Sorokin has recommended dismissal of four of them yesterday here:
http://ia701200.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142861/gov.uscourts.mad.142861.docket.html
Yes, I updated the post yesterday.
Check out 1:12-cv-10763. Booth Sweet moved to dismiss WITH prejudice due to the elapsed timeline, and Marvin filed a response saying he misunderstood the judge’s order and needs more time. Priceless!
The best part about his motion is how he complains that if he knew he was actually going to have to pursue these cases properly he would have gathered more manpower to do so. Thus proving almost everyones point that he has not intended to pursue these cases properly to this point.
HA HA, Marvin has to go talk to the principal due to his actions on the playground. I hope he gets expelled.
3:12-cv-30085-MAP
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. A Status Conference re: 70 ORDER and 71 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER, is set for 1/3/2013 11:15 AM in Courtroom 14 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. Please note: This Hearing will be held at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in Boston (York, Steve) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
You can probably guess he’s trying to test out of this meeting or he’ll come up with a sick note or some such. In his response he goes with the ‘birthday’ card in hopes of getting a gift for his 30th!
“not to mention January 3rd is Counsel’s 30th birthday”
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.73.0.pdf
Wow, what a child; both literally and metaphorically. Its nice to see we’re dealing with a pro here folks.
Happy birthday Marvin, I hope your mom gets you those beyblades you’ve been wanting, maybe some pogs too or whatever the kids are into nowadays.
Merry Christmas everybody
Looks like he got his continuance to 2:30p on January 10.
Anyone know what the Order on 2013-01-03 (77) says?
It basically grants an attorney permission to listen in to the proceedings today via phone conference
anyone know the results of the continuance
No transcript avaliable, but I know the judge did not immediately let him off the hook, so that is good news. Order entered said she’s considering sanctions, and going to consider the arguments plaintiff & defense attys made during the meeting.
I am not seeing anything posted in the public listings. They usually do. I am not seeing the order where she is considering sanctions
78 ELECTRONIC Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal: Status Conference held on 1/10/2013. The court address plaintiff counsel as to whether he violated the Court’s Order and if sanctions are appropriate. The Court took the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Digital Recording – For transcripts or CDs contact Deborah Scalfani by email at deborah_scalfani@mad.uscourts.gov.)(Attorneys present: Cable for plaintiff; Mikowski & Molari for defendants;) (York, Steve) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
Strange that you we are not able to see that in any of the public recaps
Does anyone have access to the transcript?
Docket is here http://ia601206.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143790/gov.uscourts.mad.143790.docket.html Order is dated 11-26.
Marvin loses another one….
(Order Issued 1/3/13) 1:12-cv-10760
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143652.28.0.pdf
heads-up on an update regarding one of Marvin Cable’s cases in Massachusetts (case: 12-cv-30085-MAP)
On 11/25/12, Marvin submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal for a single Doe. The following day, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal issued an order for Marvin to submit a response as to why a settlement was issued, in apparent violation of court order issued on October 4, 2012 (#70). In his Response to this Order (#71) Marvin states:
“The circumstances surrounding JD80’s situation, are different from other John Does in
this case, but not unique – many John Does are involved in other similar cases in this District.
Many John Does, like JD80 are alleged to have used the same IP address to infringe
copyrights.
The other case JD80 was involved with also approved an early discovery order, in a
similar process to the one in this case. JD80’s IP address identified him in both cases. Often
when a John Doe contacts the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Counsel for the Plaintiff will alert a John
Doe, or his or her counsel, to the alleged use of the same IP address to violate other
copyrights in other cases in this District, even in cases where the subpoena process has not
been approved in those other cases. John Doe may choose to use this information in whatever
fashion, in assessing the potential upcoming claims against him, as was done here.
Further, JD80’s Counsel was aware of the Order in this case. At JD80’s urging, both
cases were negotiated and settled at an amount acceptable to JD80 to avoid ongoing legal
defense costs. Both cases were negotiated and settled at the same time as JD80 did not wish to
leave one case pending. Defense counsel’s time spend negotiating both settlements easily
included both matters with no additional costs to JD80. In the event, this Courts Order was to
discourage settlements altogether, Plaintiff is ready to return the settlement sum for the given
case. However JD80, through counsel, respectfully requests that the settlement is allowed and
Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal is accepted by the Court.”
This response apparently did not satisfy Judge Boal, as she later issued another order that scheduled a Status conference regarding the recent order and response for 1/3/13
Attorney Marvin Cable then submitted a Motion on 12/20/12 to request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date, citing:
On January 3rd, Counsel for the Plaintiff is already scheduled to appear before
Judge Saylor for status conferences. Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72, No. 1:12-cv-10760-FDS,
ECF. No. 30 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); SBO Pictures v. Does 1 – 41, No. 1:12-cv-10804-FDS,
ECF. No. 41 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1 – 21, No. 1:12-cv-
10947-FDS, ECF. No. 21 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); PW Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 – 19, No.
1:12-cv-10814-FDS, ECF. No. 24 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Paradox Pictures v. Does 1 – 20, No.
1:12-cv-10815-FDS, ECF. No. 17 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 175,
No. 1:12-cv-11721-FDS, ECF. No. 13 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012).
Upon closer review of each of these cases
1:12-cv-10760 — Court Order on 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-10944 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-10804 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-10947 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-10814 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-10815 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
1:12-cv-11721 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
Marvin cites that he had scheduled conferences for the original date of January 3rd with Judge Saylor. The ECF’s that Marvin lists, do not appear in any docket list that I am able to find. Unless there is some off the record action going on here, it would appear that Marvin was misleading the Judge Boal in order to get the continuance. He even cited that the 1/3/13 date was his birthday.
Can you enlighten me? Are there additional docket items that would not be listed?
I don’t know if this constitutes an enlightenment, but Marvin has demonstrated in September/October some difficulty in reading a calendar. (See posts dated late September, early October toward the bottom of this thread.)
Update:
1:12-cv-10944 Case Dimissed (Order 12/12/12)
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.144198.67.0.pdf
Has there been any new progress with case 12-cv-30085 beyond the status hearing on the 10th. During the meeting Judge Boal said that she would take the arguments of counsel under consider and determine if sanctions against Cable are appropriate and end the case. Every time that I check the docket, it only shows (77) which is the order that granted an attorney permission to attend the status hearing via phone conference. Since it is nearly now 30 days beyond the 12/31 extension deadline for which Cable needs to issue summons, shouldn’t the case be closed anyway?
No update since the conference as of yet. Been keeping an eye on it in pacer
It looks like something might be happening with Third Degree Films v. Does 1-72 – the docket (http://ia701200.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143652/gov.uscourts.mad.143652.docket.html) shows two new entries (34 & 35). I have no idea what they say – can someone RECAP or summarize them for the rest of us?
01/29/2013 34 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration 33 is GRANTED. Because plaintiff has not responded to Magistrate Judge Boal’s order to show cause why the Court should not quash the subpoenas in this case for containing an erroneous notice 26 , and because that issue has not been resolved by the Magistrate Judge, the Court’s order of 01/03/2013 granting plaintiff’s request to serve summons on John Doe #1 was issued in error and is hereby VACATED. (Cicolini, Pietro) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
02/04/2013 35 ELECTRONIC Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 2/4/2013. Case called. Court has colloquy re case posture. Further telephone conference set for 2/27/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Court Reporter: Richard Romanow at bulldog@richromanow.com.)(Attorneys present: Cable (telephonic)) (Cicolini, Pietro) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
Looks like another one of Cable’s cases is soon to be closed (12:CV-30083) – “Court recommends to the District Judge to which this case is assigned that he exercise his discretion to sever all of the Doe Defendants, except one, without prejudice to MPI filing individual complaints against each of the Doe Defendants in separate actions. In addition, the Court quashes all sixty-four subpoenas in this case.”
Wish this would happen to all his cases – he still has so many open!
Magistrate Jennifer Boal has recommended severance of all does besides #1 in all of her referral cases today. More Cable cases dying out.
What does that mean? As far as I can tell, it’s only her recommendation as the cases are still open.