<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;served&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:18:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Prenda Law Update: How Do You Serve An Alan Cooper Who Might Not Exist?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/15420122409/prenda-law-update-how-do-you-serve-alan-cooper-who-might-not-exist.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/15420122409/prenda-law-update-how-do-you-serve-alan-cooper-who-might-not-exist.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having taken a break from visiting the docket for the big Prenda showdown in California, I'd missed the latest interesting update in the case.  As you may recall, Judge Otis Wright has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/12144422324/judge-wright-orders-second-prenda-hearing-tells-everyone-they-better-actually-show-up-this-time.shtml">ordered</a> all of Team Prenda back to his court room on April 2nd, for what should be an entertaining hearing.  Part of that order was a very explicit order to Brett Gibbs to serve everyone by the very next day, and to file proof of such service as of Monday of this week.  Ken over at Popehat <a href="http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/18/prenda-law-brett-gibbs-confronts-a-philosophical-conundrum/" target="_blank">has the news on the proof of service explanation</a> filed from Gibbs' lawyers, who appear to have (smartly) done everything they possibly could to serve everyone listed as carefully as possible.
<br /><br />
Ken notes one interesting tidbit is that the lawyer, who showed up in court representing John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy, told Gibbs' lawyer, Andrew Waxler, that she was "unable to accept service" for those individuals.  Ken's response:
<blockquote><i>
Normally, if you were trying to avoid a federal judge's wrath, you'd be a little more cooperative than that. The refusal suggests to me that (1) they are trying to preserve their frankly specious lack-of-personal-jurisdiction argument, and/or (2) Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and the paralegal aren't cooperating with their counsel. You can stand on ceremony and insist on formal service, but all I can say is if Judge Wright were that mad at me, I'd want the proof of service to reflect that I happily accepted service to make things easier.
</i></blockquote>
Another interesting question: how do you serve the "Alan Cooper of AF Holdings LLC" since most people are pretty sure that no such person exists?  Well, here's how:
<blockquote><i>
Service on "Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC." The only "Alan Cooper" that we are aware of appeared in Court on March 11th. I understand that he claims that he is not affiliated with AF Holdings. We further understand that Mr. Steele may contend otherwise. In any event, since we know of no other Alan Cooper than the person that appeared in Court, I reached an agreement with his attorney, Paul Godfread, that I can serve "Alan Cooper" via email only care of Mr. Godfread's email address.... Pursuant to that agreement, we served Mr. Cooper c/o Mr. Godfread on March 15th. Mr. Godfread did acknowledge receipt of the email when he wrote back with the following remarks: "Please note that I do not represent Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. I only represent Alan Cooper of Isle, MN. I do not accept service on behalf of Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. I not agree to accept service on behalf of Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. Please also note that the most recent order specifically does not order my client, Alan Cooper of Isle, MN to appear."
</i></blockquote>
Got that?  So they serve the real Alan Cooper, who says he's not the fake Alan Cooper, and the judge has already made it clear that the real Alan Cooper need not appear.  Steele may argue that these Alan Coopers are one and the same, but that's going to be quite a mountain to climb, convincing anyone that this Alan Cooper was actually a representative of AF Holdings.
<br /><br />
As for the others?  They served John Steele at his last known Florida residence (though I've heard he's moved elsewhere) as well as at a variety of different email addresses, though some of them bounced.  They served Paul Hansemeir similarly, and after a number of bounced emails, did receive at least some sort of confirmation that a somewhat generic email address was "Paul's email address."  As for Paul Duffy, they sent the letter to his last known address and email address -- which did not bounce.  Paralegal Angela Van Den Hemel was similarly served, though somehow (it is not clear how) notified them that the email address they used is "no longer active."  Mark Lutz -- whose name was remarkably absent during the first big Prenda trial (and who, unlike the others, appears to never have even replied to the original order) was also served similarly -- but they also left voice mails for him to get him to confirm his address.  Lutz never returned the calls or acknowledged the emails, but not all of the emails bounced (same deal as with Peter Hansmeier).
<br /><br />
For the companies, they just served the relevant principles: Duffy for Prenda Law and Steele Hansmeier, Lutz for Livewire, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.
<br /><br />
At this point, it will be difficult for anyone to claim they were not properly served, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them try.
<br /><br />
Either way, given their reactions to date, I'm curious how many people are actually going to show up in court on April 2nd.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/15420122409/prenda-law-update-how-do-you-serve-alan-cooper-who-might-not-exist.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/15420122409/prenda-law-update-how-do-you-serve-alan-cooper-who-might-not-exist.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/15420122409/prenda-law-update-how-do-you-serve-alan-cooper-who-might-not-exist.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>challenges,-challenges</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130321/15420122409</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Charles Carreon Finally Gets Served</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/11372821136/charles-carreon-finally-gets-served.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/11372821136/charles-carreon-finally-gets-served.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When last we checked in on "just keep digging" lawyer <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=charles+carreon">Charles Carreon</a>, he had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/11253620752/charles-carreon-still-dishing-out-threats-intimidation-while-hiding-court-summons.shtml">hiding out</a> in his Arizona home, purposely avoiding getting served for the lawsuit filed against him by a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/18282219557/charles-carreon-tries-to-intimidate-parodist-with-bizarre-list-demands-plus-dmca-takedown-threat.shtml">parodist blogger</a> who Carreon had been threatening to sue.  Carreon had promised to wait until people weren't paying attention any more and then to sue, so the blogger sued first for declaratory judgment.  Carreon has been consistently refusing to be served, while emailing Paul Levy, one of the two lawyers representing the blogger, to say that there's no reason to serve him since he has no interest in proceeding.  Of course, he says that <b>now</b>, despite the very specific claims in his threats... <i>and</i> despite the fact that Carreon specifically sought to get the blogger fired by contacting the blogger's employer.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, as  Adam Steinbaugh alerts us, <a href="http://adamsteinbaugh.com/?p=360" target="_blank">Charles Carreon finally got served</a> by the other lawyer on the case, Cathy Gellis, who realized that Carreon was due to appear in court for a different case, and decided to stop by herself.  You can read the full (brief) saga <a href="http://ia700801.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256701/gov.uscourts.cand.256701.31.0.pdf" target="_blank">in Gellis' filing</a> (pdf):
<blockquote><i>
On November 15, 2012, I personally served defendant the Summons and Amended Complaint in this case on defendant Charles Carreon.  After Mr. Carreon told my co-counsel, Mr. Levy, that he was unwilling to expose himself to service (a copy of his email is attached as Exhibit A), I verified that he was scheduled to present oral argument on November 15 in a case pending before Judge Chen.  I went to Judge Chen's courtroom in the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.  At 10:15 Mr. Carreon's matter was called, and he identified himself to the court.  At 10:50 his hearing concluded.  I waited in the hall for Mr. Carreon to leave the courtroom, which he did by 10:55.  When he did, I addressed him by name and said I had a summons and complaint for him.  He extended his arm and took them.  Service thus complete, I left the courthouse.
</i></blockquote>
Boom.  And now, hopefully, that case can move forward and the court can make it clear to Carreon that he cannot sue the blogger.  Nicely done, Cathy -- though, I'm partially (jokingly) steamed that I saw her the very next day at a conference and she didn't even mention her adventures from the previous day.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/11372821136/charles-carreon-finally-gets-served.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/11372821136/charles-carreon-finally-gets-served.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121125/11372821136/charles-carreon-finally-gets-served.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-freaking-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121125/11372821136</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:58:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Latest Facebook App: You've Been Served!</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0204113134.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0204113134.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The process of serving legal papers on someone can be quite tricky -- especially if they're purposely avoiding it.  However, a judge in Australia has now allowed a lawyer to <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&#038;objectid=10548377&#038;ref=rss" target="_new">serve a couple via Facebook</a> with notification that they've lost their house due to defaulting on a loan.  The court had already ruled that they were to lose their house for the default (the couple didn't even bother to show up in court), but before the house could actually be taken, the couple had to be served with the ruling.  However, that proved to be much more difficult than usual, and after exhausting a variety of different attempts, the court finally ruled that using Facebook would be an acceptable way to serve the documents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0204113134.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0204113134.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0204113134.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>allow-this-application-to-access-your-legal-history?--yes/no</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081216/0204113134</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>