Prenda Fails To Pay Filing Fee For Appeal, Now Owes $9,425 In Legal Fees

from the so-many-appeals-to-keep-track-of... dept

While the “big” Prenda appeal is in the central district of California, back in May, we noted that a ruling in the northern district had also said Prenda needed to pay legal fees to Nick Ranallo, in the amount of $9,425. Paul Duffy quickly appealed, but never paid the $455 fee for an appeal. He was warned a few weeks back that he needed to pay up, and still didn’t, so the court has now dumped the appeal and locked in the $9,425 fee that Prenda is required to pay. Of course, if they’re not even going to pay the $455 for the appeal, I’d imagine that it’s going to be nearly impossible to get the $9,425. As we already know, Duffy has claimed that Prenda is winding down its operations… even as a nearly identical operation, with the same basic participants, but called the Anti-Piracy Law Group, sprung up in its place. How long until someone connects those two, and says that the attorneys fees owed can come from the latter as well?

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

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 “Prenda Fails To Pay Filing Fee For Appeal, Now Owes $9,425 In Legal Fees”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: This horse is dead.

“You’ve made a career of it though”

I really want to see his resume when he applies for a job.

“So, Mr. Blue, I see here it says you’ve spent the better part of the last several years trolling a website. We normally don’t look at that kind of hobby as a plus, but it seems like you will fit in well here in the basement office of the janitorial services department. Welcome aboard!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: This horse is dead.

At this time this is the last comment in the chain.

As far as the chain I find the original comment more relevant than all the comments denouncing the original comment.

In fact I find the whole chain to be the work of a group of moronic drunken village idiots who have nothing better to do with their time but to waist it posting absurd jack ass comments at the heading section after each article.

From past experience on other boards it has been my experience that once a board reaches this state where the comment section consists of nothing more than obscenities that the board degenerates to irrelevance rather fast.

The moderator has a choice. The village idiots leave or the board crashes as insight leaves.

Trelly (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This horse is dead.

The original comment is indeed most relevant, but only because Paul Duffy didn’t get his memo about beating this old horse.

Maybe the appeal itself should have been properly considered, but since they deemed it important enough to bog down our court systems at the district court and appeals levels it probably is ok to waste a bit more on blogs and comments as well.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Out of curiosity...

To any lawyers or those legal minded:

Though I know different rules apply for lawyers and non-lawyers, what would be the typical punishment for refusal or ‘inability'(though if anyone honestly thinks those at prenda cannot pay a fine like this after running their extortion racket for so many years, I’ve got a bridge or two to sell you…) to pay a fine like this, after having had it ordered by a judge?

DannyB (profile) says:

A suggestion for TechDirt


When a comment is hidden due to being reported, also hide all of the replies to it. That would prevent the troll from accomplishing its mission of derailing any meaningful on topic discussion.

As it is, trolls can come and throw out lies, innuendo, personal insults and get tons of replies. Sometimes so many that it completely drowns out anything else. That seems to have become its purpose.

Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

Re: A suggestion for TechDirt


While it’s often amusing to read the rantings of a troll, and instructive to read the responses (insofar as many are first attempts at framing concepts mocked by the troller), ultimately, troll threads are distracting.

Collapsible threads would allow an uninterrupted flow of on-topic comments; troll threads could then be read at leisure for what they are – entertainment.

Trelly (profile) says:

Re: A suggestion for TechDirt

The problem is sometimes the troll threads have a valid point, in this case where they are complaining about beating a dead horse.

The problem the troll has is they are shooting the messenger, rather than properly identifying that the horse is being beaten well past many lifetimes by the absurd court filings.

It’s the absurd court filings which draw the crowd. Had Prenda simply left the building early on and not drag things out, there is no story to report on.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: A suggestion for TechDirt

The troll is just a troll. It throws in its obligatory ad hom attack.

It is a valid question whether this is beating a dead horse.

The answer is: to each their own. If you don’t want to read about Prenda Law, then don’t. I don’t read every article in TechDirt and (Important Newsflash:) you don’t have to either!

But there are people who are interested in it, and it is their right to be interested in it.

It is only the trolls and their paymasters who want to silence discussion of copyright trolls such as Prenda Law; whether or NOT it is yet a dead horse.

I could also opine that most sitcoms that come out of Hollywood are beating a dead horse. Same old, same old. Just new faces.

Magill (profile) says:

Typical collusion

This is typical collusion between the Courts and Lawyers…. “The firm” is being pursued for the monies owed — NOT the Lawyer responsible for the debt, or in this case the criminal activity. Yeah, I know the courts don’t consider such activity criminal, and will NEVER consider going after another Lawyer to collect the monies owed to the Public… but then all Judges are Lawyers themselves.

Paul Keating (profile) says:

Debtors Exams

This is a GREAT THING. Once a judgment has become final, the plaintiff is entitled to conduct a debtors’ examination. This is done under oath at a location determined by the plaintiff’s counsel. It is usually performed at the courthouse so that a quick ruling on contempt or ordering production can be obtained. Most notably, during the examination there are almost no privileges capable of assertion. The examination can be conducted in any area so long as it is at all relevant to identifying assets or other property usable to satisfy the judgment. The costs of the examination are an enforcement cost which can be added to the judgment. This would serve to block delaying attempts and stalling.

A notice of examination can also be directed at any person or entity who is reasonably believed to hold assets of the debtor or know of the location of same. In the right hands, this would serve as a very valuable discovery tool to investigate what is actually occurring.

Most examinations are conducted without a stenographer but there is no reason to prevent one from being used. I would hope that the plaintiffs fighting Team Prenda would band together to fund this.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 »