Righthaven Accused Of Avoiding Paying Legal Fees Owed
from the 30-days-to-get-away? dept
In the continuing saga of Righthaven (remember them?), the firm is trying to hold off on paying the legal fees ordered by the court in one of the many cases so far (more legal fee awards are likely on the way). The defendant, Michael Leon, and his lawyers (from the Randazza Group) have filed a motion (embedded below) that rips into Righthaven, claiming that the company is looking to avoid paying. They claim that they contacted Righthaven to arrange payment, but instead, Righthaven asked the court for a 30 day stay to avoid having to pay the $3,815 it owes.
Leon’s lawyers are not pleased (and, well, that’s understandable — that’s their money at stake). They’re claiming that the motion to stay by Righthaven is really an attempt to avoid payment, and to use the 30 days to shift assets away to avoid having to pay, including potentially getting rid of the copyrights, which Righthaven probably doesn’t hold in the first place.
If any court ever were to find that Righthaven owned the copyrights it claimed to own, an unlikely proposition in itself, then the full copyright rights would be subject to seizure in satisfaction of a judgment by a judgment creditor. More likely than not, the ?rights? obtained by Righthaven are worth less than paper upon which the agreements transferring them are printed. Nonetheless, worth a million dollars or nothing at all, such a right is intangible property and, as such, may be seized to satisfy the Firm?s judgment, with its value to be determined at auction. To ensure such property is present to even be seized, though, injunctive relief is necessary. Furthermore, the relief sought is not extreme ? all that is sought is an order that Righthaven may not disgorge its assets.
A stay of 30 days will enable Righthaven to liquidate money, intangible property rights in its domain name and trademarks, and its claimed copyright rights ? again, to the extent Righthaven owns them at all. Depending on which version of the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media LLC one looks at, Stephens Media LLC has either the immediate right to reversion, or the right to reversion with 30 day?s notice and a nominal payment. See Hoehn, Case No. 2:11-cv-00050 (Doc. # 28). Even if Righthaven does truly own the copyrights it obtained from Stephens Media LLC ? an unlikely proposition based on recent precedent ? it may still use the 30 day stay to resell the copyright ? potentially even to Stephens Media LLC itself.
It then goes on to claim that Righthaven has a history of being somewhat shady, noting its corporate structure, as well as statements from its CEO Steve Gibson that the motion claims were either “facially incorrect” or “found to be legally unsupported.” Based on that, it notes the fear that Righthaven will try to get out of paying:
In light of these circumstances, and Righthaven?s refusal to put anything regarding its alleged plans to satisfy the Firm?s judgment in writing…, the Firm has neither basis, nor reason, to trust Righthaven, and this court should join its honorable brethren in its strong skepticism of this champertous scheme…. To boot, Righthaven?s only known source of income, copyright infringement litigation, has screeched to a halt in the face of judicial scrutiny; in fact, no new lawsuits have been filed at all since May 2011…. Therefore, it stands to reason that Righthaven has no new revenue on its horizon ? especially since its dozens of cases in the District of Colorado have been stayed
It goes on to rake Righthaven over the coals for its efforts to avoid paying legal fees and then concludes with this little gem:
Furthermore, if Righthaven?s CEO can provide a statement, under penalty of perjury, that it cannot scrounge up $381.50 in less than 24 hours, then the undersigned will gladly find someone willing to loan this amount to Righthaven for that purpose, and pledges to do so within 60 minutes of being presented with this sworn declaration.