District of Columbia

wordpress counter


108 responses to ‘District of Columbia

  1. Oh, this is getting good. Can’t wait for the outcomes of today’s hearing at 12-cv-00048 (dcd).

    Peter Hansmeier of 6881 Forensics LLC is an expected witness? (dkt 34)

    And MOTION in Limine To Bar Evidence And Argument? (dkt 37)

    And more!…

  2. Beryl Howell is a shill. Her rulings to deny motion to quash and siding consistently with trolls is very public and open. If she had any shame, she would excuse herself for conflict and let someone else take over. Comeon guys, she made a killlin defending copyright and suddenly she is going to start listening impartially, not going to happen. She is not going to see this scam as it might throw water on her high paying gigs of future to be a copyright guardian.
    Every step of the way, in every case she has been a troll gimp and not hidden it. I hope she gets incorrectly fingered for downloading – “Muff Munchers in Robes” or “Strap on Judges”. Oh, the horror.

  3. Someone pls send beryl the happening and judge orders to kick some information into her biased brains. What happened to the Troll Alamo last week in the 1:12-cv-00048 case for which some troll seemed to be giddy on DTD site.

  4. http://ia600806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.docket.html

    A couple of interesting things in AF Holdings v. Does 1-1058. It doesn’t show up on the RECAP docket, but if you look at the case in PACER judge Howell DENIED Duffy’s motion in limine to bar evidence and argument regarding unrelated cases.

    Additionally, Comcast has filed judge Brown’s decision from EDNY, and naturally Duffy filed a response attempting to downplay it.

    • Reading Duffy’s response

      Non-party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed a second notice of supplemental authority, attaching a magistrate judge’s order and recommendations from In Re: BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, No. 11-03995 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012) (ECF No. 39). The decision provided as supplemental authority involved different pleadings, a different procedural context, different factual underpinnings, different counsel and different parties than the instant case. By way of example, one of the plaintiffs in the “supplemental authority” was relying on trademark claims versus copyright infringement claims. (ECF No. 39-1 at 5).

      I can’t help adding “also look at this and the referred cases’ complaints: the caption fonts are different, not to mention that the number of pages is odd versus even.”

      • In a weird way (if I understand Troll Costa Nostra correctly) Prenda’s stinky hens came back to roost in Lipscomb’s henhouse. He must be thrilled with the Buffster.

  5. The docket link for the CV of expert witness Steve Smoot shows only a blank page. (Presumably an error, though it’s tempting to make a joke about Troll evidence.)

    Mr. Smoot is listed as a consultant for the consultant/professional expert witness site http://www.ecompconsultants.com. His testimony may be forthcoming.

    His ecompconsultants page notes that he has 34 years experience. It lists his education as “ASEE – Electrical Engineering, 1977, United Electronics Institute”. It could be that his professional accomplishment is considerable. Additional certifications, degrees, and mention of specific employers beyond consulting are not mentioned.

    It seems the expert witness chosen by the plaintiff earns at least part of his income as a professional witness. An “ASEE”, it seems, is an Associates degree in electrical engineering, less than a 4 year college Bachelor’s program. The educational institution listed,United Electronics Institute of Tampa Florida closed on 01/25/1993, over 19 years ago.


    To be clear what’s involved, as described by a porn industry news report, the case involves allegation toward 1,058 Does for the video “Popular Demand”. “Popular Demand” is a Heartbreaker Digital production. Heartbreaker Digital is related to Heartbreaker Films, owned by pornstar Nina Mercedez (her stage name) and her husband Raymond Balboa.

    According to the report (1/18/12):
    “”Popular Demand” offers scenes from Audrey Bitoni, Eva Angelina, Gina Lynn and Nina Mercedez, who shows off her first double penetration. Mercedez is co-owner of Heartbreaker Digital, as well as Heartbreaker Films.”
    AF Holdings holds the rights to Heartbreaker Digital’s “Popular Demand” and is based off shore on the island of Nevis. AF Holdings has filed at least 33 trolling cases in 9 U.S. jurisdictions. Though many cases don’t list the entire Doe list up front, the number of Does is well over 2700.

    • I also couldn’t suppress a chuckle when I saw this empty page. Thanks for digging all this info. We have all the rights to question their experts’ background and reputation, and I have no doubt that any technology witness who is willing to testify in defense of the trolls looks suspicious: so far we heard only “experts” who are the part of the problem, i.e. who have vested monetary interest and hence hardly independent. Never did I hear anyone, who is not related to trolls, defending robustness of IP harvesting tools. In reality it does not even matter: no one will ever prove 100% accuracy, so many innocents caught in this scheme is still a huge problem. And it’s not a secret that at most of the recorded IP addresses did participate in bittorent swarms, and most of those indeed were the subscribers who shared the smut. It would be dishonest to claim that the majority of alleged infringers are absolutely innocent. Yet how that excuses the other myriad of wrongs with these lawsuits: unconstitutional shift of the burden to prove the tort, unconstitutionally high fines, hollow threats, impudent lies, outright fraud and sleazy tactics?

  6. A cursory internet search seems to indicate that Mr. Smoot’s primary source of income for the last two years has been derived from being a hired gun. Undoubtedly Mr. Smoot’s purchased testimony does not come cheap.The only reason IMHO why Steele has paid for this guy is because he in uncomfortable with the anticipated testimony of Peter Hansmeier and needs Smoot to help bolster it.

  7. A good sign. In both Raw Films v. Does 1-3 (case no.12-cv-234) and Patrick Collins v. John Doe (case no. 12-cv-325) Judge Richard Leon issued Minute Orders (not on RECAP) denying Troll Hoppe’s motions for expedited discovery. After which, the troll shuts down the lawsuits.

  8. Is this guy simply dumb?

    Weretroll Mike Meier tries to dismiss Zwarycz from the case, and he says something that he probably did not mean to say (emphasis is mine):

    On or about January 30, 2012, out of the blue, Bailey Zwarycz (“Zwarycz” or “Defendant”), by and through counsel, filed an Answer and Counterclaims. Plaintiff had not named Zwarycz in the Complaint, and never had an opportunity to review Zwarycz’s case beforehand. Zwarycz resides in Blacksburg, Virginia, and is thus subject to jurisdiction of this Court only because she voluntarily entered an appearance.

    He states that “only” because she voluntarily entered, the court has jurisdiction over her. In other words, contrary to what he said in the complaint, he admits that this court does not have jurisdiction over non-DC residents.

    • Thanks. Love the great bit of BS –

      “Zwarycz may argue that she has incurred substantial expenses. However, it was Zwarycz herself who retained two attorneys and experts before filing her Answer and Counterclaims out of the blue. Zwarycz could have contacted Plaintiff at cost of one telephone call to explain that she is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.”

      Sure, if you tell the Troll you didn’t do it or he has the wrong jurisdiction, he would have dropped the case in the first place. What a load!

      DTD 🙂

  9. Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC has 8 new troll suit filings in DC, listed on RFC Express with a date of 5/13/2012, probably not officially filed on a Sunday. Malibu Media LLC is the plaintiff for 6 cases, and Patrick Collins, Inc is plaintiff for 2 cases.

    Before filing copyright troll lawsuits on behalf of porn purveyors, Mr. Hoppe apparently had no major copyright law experience. On Friday, May 11, 2012, Michael K. Lipscomb of Lipscomb Brady & Eisenberg PL opened lawsuits for both Patrick Collins, Inc & Malibu Media LLC in Florida Southern District. Coincidence ?

  10. SDNY ruling – music to ear. Are DC courts listening or their ears are still stuffed with lobbying money?
    Somone forward this ruling to Honorable Judge Beryl Howell.

  11. Can someone explain what is going on with 1:12-cv-00895 Open Mind Solution Inc. vs Does 1-565? Looks like a motion to quash has just been sitting there for over four months with no response. Is that normal?

  12. This is delicious.

    In Third Degree Films v. Does 1-152 (11-cv-1833) Doe Zwarycz filed an answer and counterclaims against Troll Meier. These two fought like cats in a bag until Judge Howell granted Meier’s motion and dismissed the counterclaims “for the reasons stated on the record” (?!) during a status conference (?!) on 4-20. The written Order made in the aftermath of this status conference does not mention the dismissal (suspect some shady judicial moves here). Meier drops the lawsuit against Zwarycz on 5-10. Zwarycz is not giving up though and has filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This might not turn out so good for Judge Howell, Troll Meier and trolls in general. http://ia700703.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150694/gov.uscourts.dcd.150694.61.0.pdf

    DTD, may want to post an update.

    • Not to put too fine a head on this but…..Circuit Court review of Judge Howell and routine troll harassment practices! This is huge.

        • For too long trolls have been receiving kid glove treatment by Judge Howell and others in DCD, now a higher court is going to look at this entire process afresh. Ciircuit Court determinations are controlling in a manner that a single District Court determination can never be and much more influential beyond their jurisdictional territory. In other words, if this Circuit Court comes down hard on Howell and Trolls the reverberations will be felt at the District Court level nationwide.

          By causing this to occur Troll Meier has given Does a gift similar to the one he gave in the SDNY when he admitted to a 30% false positive return on IP addresses.

        • Last comment; from Wikipedia:

          “The United States Courts of Appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of people, the United States Courts of Appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law; however, this political recognition is controversial. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to hear fewer than 100 of the more than 10,000 cases filed with it annually, the United States Courts of Appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases.”

  13. According to RFC, the frequent filer troll in DC Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC has filed at least 3 new cases (for porn purveyor Malibu Media) in DC this morning.

    Mr. Hoppe filed 16 cases for porn purveyor plaintiffs (mainly Malibu Media/X-Art/Brigham Fields) around 4/19/12. On 05/01/2012, Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow issued orders several all Does but Doe #1 from those cases. Mr. Mike Meier filed new cases in Maryland for the porn purveyor Patrick Collins Inc. in late April 2012, while Mr. Hoppe had previously filed the Patrick Collins cases in Maryland.

    DC Does or their attorneys might remind the assigned judges of Judge Chasanow’s report and orders, such as in motions to the court. DC District court is 13 miles or 25 minutes drive time from Judge Chasanow’s . Hopefully, bad news for trolls travels fast.

  14. A Herculean Task?

    In Malibu Media v. Does 1-14 (DCD 12-cv-764) Doe Defender Morgan Pietz files a motion to quash/sever before Judge Howell.

  15. Looks like Troll Hoppe has named a couple of people, I hope they did not talk to these leeches


    • Hoppe also named 3 in Maryland. Since one of the names is clearly female, it seems likely that Hoppe/Lipscomb/Patrick Collins, Inc./Malibu Media must feel an advantage rather than picking random names to raise their demands.

      The porn titles in troll cases are mostly intended for males. (All due respect to those of either gender or preference.) If Hoppe/Lipscomb is picking a Doe who obviously has no incentive to file share, they have some clue that this Doe is easier to intimidate than others.

      There are at least three different plaintiffs for this handful of Does. Rather than picking a set of Does from one case, Hoppe/Lipscomb have made some estimate about the most vulnerable.

  16. Im probably not using PACER correctly but I’m seeing 12 named defendants by Malibu Media. 10 in Colorado, 1 in Maryland, 1 in DC. Plaintiff is requesting a trial by jury with a $150,000 demand. Looks like “site -rip” type with 5-10 “X-Art” movies being downloaded.

  17. Is anyone familiar with the previous tactics and success rate of Jon A. Hoppe’s litigation on behalf of Malibu Media in the DC District Court?

  18. It’s truly incredible to me that a judge can issue seemingly completely opposite memorandums in two cases which are almost identical.

  19. EFF has filed a “Notice of Submitted Matter” in 1:11-cv-01741 (Hard Drive vs Does 1-1495)

    This document reminds the court and interested parties of EFFs motion challenging the decision to disallow anonymous motions from Does, and:

    “More broadly, EFF moved for reconsideration of the grant of early discovery in this case due to serious constitutional and procedural problems.”

    EFF notes that no decision has been made on its motions and they “remain ripe for decision”.

    Document #51 on the docket here (thanks to whoever uploaded it):

    • That’s an interesting one. I had this case in my justia.com RSS feed 3 weeks ago but it had a rather cryptic title back then, so I had no idea what it was about. I hope more information will be available soon.

  20. Not sure what it means but the judge made some kind of ruling on the openmind solutions vs does 1-565 today. (1:11-cv-01883)

    • He basically COMPLETELY ignored the issue that Cablevision raised about the Cable Act not covering cable modems, thereby ignoring an entire legal issue (“this court blah blah”). Then he denied their motion and allowed issuance of third-party subpoenas. He’s been doing some weird shit lately that doesn’t make sense. The HDP ruling then this, contradicting himself and then ignoring a law.

  21. AF Holdings v. Does 1-1058

    Comcast et al filed an appeal with CADC

    “08/16/2012 Open Document PETITION filed [1389849] by Petitioners Bright House Networks, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc. and Verizon Online, LLC for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Response to Petition served by mail due on 08/30/2012 [Service Date: 08/16/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 21-30. [12-8011]

    08/17/2012 MISCELLANEOUS CASE docketed. [12-8011]

    08/17/2012 Open Document LETTER SENT [1389868] regarding attorney membership to Paul A. Duffy for AF Holdings. LLC. Application for Admission due 09/17/2012. [12-8011] ”

    The letter they sent Duffy says that he isn’t a member of the court’s bar so he can’t file anything with them until he either applies for admission (requires two sponsors) by September 17th or notifies the court that he’s not gonna seek admission and not going to represent AF Holdings.

    Duffy better haul ass on his application because response to the petition is due in 3 days 🙂

      • To the best of my knowledge, these are slightly independent categories: admitted to practice in A and being a Menmer of Bar of A. Hope lawyers chime in and explain it better. It’s convoluted as the Law itself, can’t be otherwise.

        • He doesn’t appear to be trolling in the DC Superior Court. He’s still trolling out in Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia. Got a few named defendants in some Open Mind cases and the Sunlust case in Colorado. Nothing filed this month though. Whether he’s associated with Prenda or not, wild guess here, he’s still trolling in states where Prenda doesn’t have licensed attorneys (except Anderson) so I’d guess he’s still associated with them.

          On another note, I just checked out new copyright lawsuits on rfcexpress. Hoppe just dumped a massive amount of cases on the DC District. Lesko just filed a lawsuit in SDIL on the 20th, XPAYS, Inc. v. Does 1-34 (3:12-cv-00928-JPG-SCW), this one should be interesting. Some new troll Patrick J. Cerillo in NJ has been filing shit for Malibu Media and the cases contain declarations by Tobias Fieser (that Wikipedia page on how bittorrent works is hilarious)…so IPP, Ltd. is involved.

      • He’s not a member of the DC Bar, he doesn’t have to be unless he wants to practice in actual District Courts like the DC Superior Court. The District is just like any other state. Has one superior court and a court of appeals (supreme court). Federal courts are a different matter. He’s admitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia but is obviously not admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    • Does anyone know how to look into this? dcbar.org does not list him. I would think Comcast, Verizon and etc would know for sure before they file something like that.

      1. How did this slip past for so long.

      2. How stupid is Prenda if this is true?

  22. I use to get a call every week from 818 number. The person left a voicemail saying the lawyers have decided to move foward in a case against me and what will happen is they will take me to court where I live. They have called me in over a month. Should I be worried they will name me in court?

    • I wouldn’t be worried, but I’m desensitized to this after non-stop harassment for 14 months. I got to the point where I laugh at their voicemails. All of the threats of a lawsuit 3 times per week, still no lawsuit. Then the calls stopped. Why? I don’t care, I’m not worried. Did you get a copy of a subpoena from your ISP? It depends on the state where you live and the law firm you’re dealing with. If you’re dealing with Prenda (like I’ve been doing), then a state like Utah…not a chance. Maine, nope. Quite a few other states as well. My advice would be do some research on the case and do not, under any circumstances, post ANY details of your case anywhere as those scumbags monitor sites like this.

        • It probably took them a while to find an attorney who’s desperate enough to take a wrecking ball to his (her) reputation just to represent a porn company, given that Utah has a large Mormon population which is reflected in their laws.

      • Well, that’s only because no one has actually gone to trial by jury. I think we can all agree no one wants to on either side but who’s willing to be a sacrificial lamb to expose these guys? Maybe if I won the lottery and had the financial means to fight (and pay in the event of a loss) I’d gamble. This is a game of chicken and that sound you hear is me clucking.

    • They’ve never actually taken a case to a jury. Why? Well, uh heh…because the evidence wouldn’t even pass the smell test, much less meet the Federal Rules of Evidence.

  23. This popped up on the HDP v 1495 docket today… thoughts?

    SEALED RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 18 Order This document is SEALED and is available to authorized persons only.(zrdj) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

    • Best Guess, nothing to worry about. As they’re “re18”. It’s probably submission by John or Jane Does who’ve received permission to proceed anonymously.

  24. Openmind Solutions vs Does 1-565. Judge Facciola rules that anyone who subscribes to the internet has no expectation of privacy of their internet subscriber information and any anonymous motions are automatically denied. He now orders ISPs to send their subscriber information to OpenMind Solutions. Filed September 19, 2012. 1:11-cv-01883-JMF

    • “These Doe defendants have moved to quash the subpoena issued to their ISPs but also
      move to file their motions under seal. I have now concluded, however, that no one will be
      permitted to proceed any further in this case without identifying himself or herself. Individuals
      who subscribe to the internet through ISPs simply have no expectation of privacy in their
      subscriber information.”

      Has Facciola gone full retard? This is literally a 180. I’m surprised that he hasn’t at least stayed this case pending the outcome of the AF Holdings v. Does (Howell case) appeal in front of CADC.

      • Up til this point, I never agreed with people accusing judges of being paid off, I just assumed they were ignorant of what was really going on. However, the complete turn-around Facciola has demonstrated recently has made me wonder if he is getting some kickback out of trolling now. It’s disgusting.

        • Yeah I don’t believe that…or I really don’t want to. It’s not like he’d be the first federal judge to take payoffs but Prenda is very likely cash-strapped (they’ve been Skyping Does…come on) and I doubt he’d risk federal prison for some copyright troll scum. In fact, I’m not even gonna sit here and speculate whether a federal magistrate judge is taking payoffs. I’m more inclined to buy into some sort of peer pressure like Howell’s decisions. That or senility. He does one thing, then leaves for half a year, comes back and directly contradicts his own rulings…what the hell did he do for 6 months? It does raise the question of “what the fuck!?” It’s like he has no idea what’s going on in DCD, completely disconnected.

  25. It looks like Judge Huvelle has severed all but Doe 1 in a Hoppe/Malibu Media case filed on 7/9/12 based on improper joinder.

  26. So does that mean that if you get the request from your ISP in DC that they will release your name that you should lawyer up still, or should you just wait it out? Not sure how this affects future DC Does.

  27. Looking at RFC when it says something like

    NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re John Does # 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 (Hoppe, Jon)

    does that mean that these people paid the settlement?

    • Mr. Jon Alexander Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey has filed at least 76 cases in Maryland and DC since late June 2011, just for the porn purveyor plaintiffs Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, and K-Beech.

      His partner, of Charles C. Maddox, also of of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey, has additionally filed at least 3 more cases for the porn purveyor plaintiff Patrick Collins.

      Mr. Maddow appears to have no main copyright law specialty, aside from serving as the local lawyer front man for these porn purveyor plaintiffs, and their porn copyright troll lawyer overlord(s). By coincidence, the troll lawyer reprobates conferring with Judge Baylson, M. Keith Lipscomb and Christopher Fiore, mentioned in the Nov. 3 SJD post, share the same porn purveyor plaintiffs.

      Some of the distinguished “useful works” that Jon A. Hoppe has filed cases for include:

      “Gang Bang Virgins”, “GangBanged”, “Big Wet Asses #19”, and “Massive Asses 5”.

      Hey SJD or DTD or Raul or others, has Mr. Hoppe earned an association with these intellectual property titles?

      • Anyone needing an attorney against these guys should call Robert Powers. He helped me a few years ago and is very familiar with the Maddox den of trolls. He’s not real cheap but will do a phone consultation for $250 and will advise you fairly of what you need to do from there. For me the $250 was totally worth it just to put my mind at ease. Good luck.

        • I vouch for Mr. Powers: a serious and knowledgeable attorney. Fighting copyright trolls is not his primary occupation, that’s why he does not offer free consultations: he deals with big clients (IP, not divorce).

          The fact that fighting copyright trolls is not his primary occupation does not mean he does not understand this topic, he does and very deeply.

  28. Another case filed yesterday in DC against 5 Does, alleging around 10 infringements each. Anyone have any updates (beyond what is on PACER) regarding DC cases filed by Malibu/Hoppe?

  29. Can anyone explain in non-lawyer language what happened in the Openmind Solutions vs Does1-565 case on Nov. 26th? (CASE #: 1:11-cv-01883-JMF)

  30. Sorry SJD to be using your blog as a bulletin board but the following may become post worthy, in the future, as it is before Judge Howell and the inequities are fearsome mother being sued for the admitted actions of her son).

    1.Dr. Doe motion for summary judgement http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/patrickcollins_johndoes1-6_deftmotsumjudgdiscomplaintmemolaw.pdf

    2.Troll Hoppe/Lipscomb opposition (don’t read unless you are on blood pressure medication) http://ia600805.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.154802/gov.uscourts.dcd.154802.15.0.pdf

    3.Dr. Doe’s reply pointing out misstatement of facts and law by Troll (fn. 2 is good but, ultimately sad) http://ia700805.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.154802/gov.uscourts.dcd.154802.16.0.pdf

  31. I got letter in the mail from an attorney. we currently reviewing the matter for purposes of determing their clients claim of copyright infringment against me and they want me to complete a form and returm it to them in 10 day. What advise anyone offer

    • It’s a trap, you shouldn’t send them any information, it can and will be used against you. Keep them in dark: they don’t have any court-grade evidence and try to trick you into providing self-incriminating statements.

      It’s like answering the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” — both answers are bad.

    • Unless you are ordered by a court to do so, any information you offer up is strictly voluntary – from what I’ve read so far. I believe that the forms they do send even state that the answers you give can be held against you in a court of law. Even if they did get a court order, one could potentially “plea the fifth” if they don’t want to give ammunition that the plantiff will try to use against you in court. Let’s say you didn’t pirate the materials… but that you are a man in your 20’s who admits how to use torrents on that form. They will say “See?! SEE! HE SAID ON OUR FORM HE USES TORRENTS! HE’S GUILTY!” They obviously hope for a judge that is technologically illiterate. But that’s jumping forward GREATLY as the more likely thing they’ll do with the forms that people mail back is say: “Oh, they said a male lived in the household who knows how to use torrents. Lean on them more for a settlement, I bet they’ll buckle!”

      So, I’d listen to Raul and SJD above – “you shouldn’t send them any information.” I would just add the addendum of “unless compelled by the courts. In which case they’d serve you in person… in which case you should consult a lawyer who will tell you if you need to answer anything.”

  32. 11 more cases posted on rfc from MM, I guess Liscum found another local troll. Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC.

    • Hoppe’s actually been in the game a while as a proxy for Steele (I think). I was threatened by him years ago (in the form of a letter)–it’s the usual spiel: subpoena of info, threatening letters, threatening phone calls, etc. All it took from me was a slight push back (and a phone conversation with Mr Powers listed at the top of the page) and they never bothered me again–been over two years at this point. Good luck.

  33. Looks like Open Mind Solutions vs Does 1-565 was voluntarily dismissed by Duffy on May 31st. But says “dismissed without prejudice”…that means they can just refile correct? If so, does is there is a statute of limitations on this kind of stuff?

    • Three years from the date of alleged download or two years from the alleged computer fraud (hacking that they mask these things as – utter buillshit).

      • Every one of Malibu’s recent, single Doe complaints that I have read has included fresh alleged downloads no more than two months old at the time of filing and often closer to two weeks.

        The Miami-Dade courts website lists Malibu’s most recent PBOD case as filed 8/17/2012. It’s conceivable that they are hiding more of these cases under a different filing name or in another Florida court but if that were the case they wouldn’t need to bother with the federal discovery hurdles that they have encountered eg. in Maryland and Wisconsin.

  34. does malibu media tend to target individuals from larger suits that have been dissmissed without prejudice?

Leave a Reply to Raul Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s