Sanctions Sought Against Righthaven's Lawyers For Not Dismissing Remaining Cases

from the make-it-stop dept

In its continuing effort to put the final nail in the coffin of Righthaven, the Randazza Legal Group has now filed for sanctions against Righthaven’s lawyers. The filing argues that, given the multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions slamming Righthaven’s legal strategy and specifically ruling that Righthaven has no standing to sue, while also questioning if there even is any infringement here at all, Righthaven has a duty to dismiss its remaining cases:

Righthaven?s scheme has been rejected nationwide. Within this District, Courts had ruled four times that Righthaven did not have standing to sue its defendants ? and that its amendments to the SAA made after filing suit were ineffective ? just between June 14 and June 23, 2011.4 To the extent any legitimate question of law existed about Righthaven?s standing to sue in the first place, considering this Circuit?s precedent in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Corp., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), and Sybersound Records, Incorporated v. UAV Corporation, 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), that doubt should have been resolved in June upon Righthaven?s fourth adverse ruling on standing. Yet, only days away from Halloween, the Defendants in this action continue to bear the costs of litigation establishing Righthaven?s lack of standing. This District has conclusively settled this exact issue, and Righthaven?s consistent argument to the contrary can no longer be advanced in good faith. Righthaven and its Counsel have a duty to dismiss this case, and not to waste the Court?s time or the Defendant?s time and resources in making the exact same arguments, which have been rejected again, and again, and again, and again.

The filing notes that continuing with these other lawsuits isn’t just a waste of everyone’s time, but reaches the level of vexatious litigation, by pursuing such cases in obvious bad faith. In the case at hand, involving a site called NewsBlaze, Righthaven’s lawyer, Shawn Mangano, has been trying to argue that, since its original motion to dismiss didn’t bring up the standing issue, it can’t be added later. It appears that Righthaven is also trying to re-argue the standing issue to some extent, though as this filing notes, that’s settled law in this court:

Righthaven is precluded from further arguing that it has standing to bring this action under the SAA, and that its amendments executed after filing suit are effective, by the doctrine of issue preclusion ? formerly known as collateral estoppel. When an issue has been fully and actually litigated, as these issues have been ad nauseam in this District, a party is barred from relitigating the issue.

Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?

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 “Sanctions Sought Against Righthaven's Lawyers For Not Dismissing Remaining Cases”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"

My guess is that by automatically assuming everyone who doesn’t comment is in agreement with him, it’s a masturbatory attempt to claim that his perspective trumps the article’s; that is, against whatever Mike is saying.

If Mike doesn’t make a comment I think ootb might just jizz himself.

davnel (profile) says:

Re: Can't end

By “made whole” I presume you also include the “settlement” payments made by those conned into settling.

Actually, the only way that’s going to happen, and the affected see any money, is if Stephens Media is brought into the case and made responsible.

Again I say, if Stephens or any other third-party participant to the “agreements” can be proven to have received disbursements from Righthaven, they can be legally attached to the case and made responsible. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Anonymous Coward says:

righthaven has done this so poorly that it has effectively crippled this business model for anyone else. the only thing i can think of in the way of lingering question is do we classify them as really really big screw ups or lawyers who fought this out to increase their billable hours knowing that what they did violated their professional ethics and oath.

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...