Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
from the i-think-the-courts-are-on-to-prenda... dept
Remember Brett Gibbs? The California-based lawyer, who is handling a bunch of Prenda Law cases, has been trying to avoid the inevitable in some cases in California. As you may recall, Prenda Law was formed, in part, by copyright troll John Steele. Recently, Prenda has been involved in a number of very fishy cases, including representing firms “AF Holdings” and “Ingenuity 13”, which some have accused of being mere shells for Prenda or associated lawyers. Things got strange when a guy named Alan Cooper, who works as a caretaker for some John Steele properties in Minnesota, sought to intervene in some AF Holdings cases, after he realized that “Alan Cooper” was the name listed as CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and he feared that Steele had misused his identity.
A lawyer in California, Morgan Pietz, representing some of the defendants sued by Gibbs/Prenda, had brought Alan Cooper’s claims to the attention of the judge in California, and sought to have Gibbs explain if the Alan Cooper listed as CEO of Ingenuity 13 was the same house caretaker complaining that he thought his name was being used without his permission. If, in fact, it was a different Alan Cooper, the simple response would be to show that there’s another Alan Cooper and that person really is in charge of these companies. Instead, Gibbs threw something of a hissy fit, refusing to answer such a basic question.
Pietz then asked the court to compel Gibbs to answer some specific questions about the “Alan Cooper” named as CEO, as well as about Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings. The court agreed and gave Gibbs a short deadline. Rather than doing his homework, Gibbs threw another temper tantrum and made a motion to get rid of the judge, Otis Wright, making a bizarre and silly argument that the judge somehow hated copyright holders.
The court has reviewed Gibbs’ request… and rejected it soundly, pointing out that there is no good reason to remove Judge Wright from the case, and that contrary to Gibbs’ claims, there appeared to be no bias against him, his clients or copyright law.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it.
Plaintiff’s argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright’s discovery orders. This is not a cognizable basis for disqualification.
Furthermore, the court notes that it would appear that a much more logical explanation for Judge Wright’s orders is not bias against copyright or porn copyright holders, as Gibbs had claimed, but rather “the potential for discovery abuse.” In other words, not only does Judge Wright understand what Gibbs appears to be up to, but others at the court have quickly seen through his attack as well. So, the remaining question is what will Gibbs do next: will he actually answer the questions, or find another reason to throw a temper tantrum?