Righthaven Desperately Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees

from the keep-digging dept

The Righthaven saga continues. Just as it’s lost in Colorado, and was told it needs to pay legal fees there as well, the company is still trying to get out of having to pay legal fees in the Hoehn case in Nevada. As you may recall, Righthaven was ordered to pay legal fees of $34,045.50 by September 14th. It did not do so. Following that, Hoehn’s lawyer, Marc Randazza (whose name you’re seeing a lot in these Righthaven cases), asked the court to declare Righthaven in contempt, and sought both to put the company into receivership and to allow US Marshals to seize property from Righthaven for its failure to pay. In typical plodding fashion, Righthaven has still not paid up… but has filed a motion (embedded below) asking the appeals court to put off the district court’s judgment, because it believes the ruling will be overturned (ha!) and having to pay up would cause irreparable harm. The motion is worth reading. As with previous Righthaven motions we’ve seen, the company seems to think that mocking the district court judge is a reasonable strategy. You can feel the contempt for the judge in the filing, which I can’t imagine will go over well.

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Appeals Court grants the stay. It’s not uncommon for appeals courts to do so, and it’s unclear if the Appeals Court is aware of Righthaven’s continued antics in these cases. Still, in the end, I can’t see Righthaven winning, so this just seems like delaying the inevitable.

Filed Under:
Companies: righthaven

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Righthaven Desperately Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
29 Comments
Tor (profile) says:

Re: No winners

If you by “Righthaven has lost” mean that they will eventually need to file for a bankruptcy and that they are aware of that, wouldn’t wasting money in such a situation be illegal? (since there is ground to believe that the money is actually not theirs to waste)
Or maybe you just meant incurring costs upon the other party in this specific trial.

Scote (profile) says:

Does Righthaven have to inform the appeals court about its sanctions?

Whatever the case, I despise the way the legal system lets this company have a near infinite number of swings with virtually no accountability. It refuses to even post bond while waiting on appeal–a bond for what it may owe if it looses is pretty standard, but the refuse to do even that.

Andrew (profile) says:

Simply said

“Simply put, these sweeping contempt and judgment enforcement efforts unquestionably subject Righthaven to the immediate threat of irreparable harm by seeking to appoint a receiver over its affairs, as well as to seize and liquidate its tangible and intangible assets, which include the company?s intellectual property rights in and to copyright protected content that is directly at issue in this case, as well as those at issue in several other appeals pending before this Court along with content at issue numerous cases pending in the District of Nevada and the District of Colorado.”

If that is “simply put” I would like to know what “verbose and unnecessarily complicated” means.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“This is closer to you going in front of the judge, contesting the ticket, going to court, losing, being given the fine, then appealing the ruling.”

In fairness, it’s more like getting a large fine you are unable to pay and having your car seized and sold to pay it off while you appeal. Even if you win on appeal, the car is gone and you just lost your method of getting to work.

(Not saying Righthaven is right overall, just saying they might win this particular motion.)

Anonymous Coward says:

The motion is worth reading.

Still, for those who are in a hurry, here are a few highlights:

-“The decisions on appeal demonstrate clear error by the district court and must be reversed upon review by this Court.”
-“Serious legal questions are those that the court perceives a need to preserve the status quo.” (Perhaps they meant “are needed”, or “where the court perceives a need”?)
-“Granting a stay of the Judgment during appellate review also mitigates any irreparable harm impacting Righthaven’s pending and future copyright litigation efforts.”
-“Righthaven also has significant proprietary rights in its copyright infringement search engine software” (They have what now? I figured they just used Google or something.)
-“Simply put, Righthaven cannot allow these assets to be seized and liquidated while it seeks appellate review.”
-“Granting a stay also serves the public interest. […] For instance, Righthaven’s appeal implicates the parameters under which non-content generating copyright holders can enforce rights in and to assigned content. The public would unquestionably benefit from additional case law that sets forth the requirements for properly conveying ownership in and to copyright protected content together with the right to sue for accrued infringement claims.”

And an executive summary:

“You can’t take our money because we’re right and you’re all wrong.”

Tor (profile) says:

Re: Public interest

Here are three more quotes that I found funny/interesting:

“Consideration should also be given to where the public interest lies.”

“Righthaven must further show that issuing the requested stay would further the public interest. “

“Denying stay relief, however, necessarily raises the possibility that Righthaven may be forced to file bankcruptcy and liquidation (…). This would deprive the public of this Court’s analysis on a host of complex issues concerning the enforcement of copyright protected material displayed without authorization on the Internet.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Rearranging the deck chairs?

Sounds like they are re-arranging the deck chairs (and offloading the gold onto the nearest submarine) before the ship goes down…

I didn’t see a renegade cook or stripper anywhere in the mix, but it would make for a better story when they sell the rights to their story to the movie makers (it will be the only thing they have left when the judge gets done with them if we are lucky).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...