Prenda Tries To Weasel Out Of Case It Just Lost At The Appeals Court

from the run-away,-run-away dept

Remember last week when the DC Circuit appeals court overturned one of Prenda’s few “wins” on the question of “joinder” (lumping together a bunch of unrelated people in a single lawsuit)? That was the case where a former RIAA lobbyist-turned-judge, Beryl Howell, was one of a very few judges who found such joinder appropriate. The appeals court disagreed and sent it back. And… in response, Prenda (in the form of Paul Duffy) are now trying to scamper away, by filing to voluntarily dismiss the case. This is pretty typical in the Prenda playbook. Whenever things start to look problematic, they try to dismiss the case and get away unscathed. Most of the cases where various attorneys’ fees are being lumped on them involve similar cases where Prenda tried to run away, and was not allowed to do so. Some of the plaintiffs in this case may pursue fees, though with the previous awards piling up, it’s unlikely they’d get much at this point. Either way, it’s clear that after the appeal went against Prenda, it doesn’t even want to try again at the district level.

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 Tries To Weasel Out Of Case It Just Lost At The Appeals Court”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Someone will be along in a minute to sort out my memory…
But if memory serves, IPs from these case were identified and spawned other cases in other districts.
Some of those were answered, so one wonders if they can still slink away into the night after getting information improperly and making use of it.

I think it is telling that it is without prejudice, keeping the door open that they might still go after those they did get information on.

It would be interesting to see if any courts would be interested to see how much data Prenda took in was used outside of the court system, mostly just to highlight the abuse of the process that ran wild for so long.

Quiet Lurcker says:

Re: "without" prejudice?

Not a lawyer here, so please don’t take this as canonical.

That disclaimer out of the way, I suspect you’ll find that dismissing ‘without prejudice’ is a tactical move, on the basis that (at least according to my layman’s understanding) a dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would make the dismissal dispositive (meaning the case goes away completely at this point) with prenda substantially on the losing side and thus (possibly – courts seem reluctant to award in these types of cases) liable for fees, expenses, etc.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The ISPs made motions, as the subpoenas were served upon them and gave them standing in the court.
Judge Howell had ruled that all of the targeted Does had no standing what so ever, and that she would not consider her lack of personal jurisdiction at this point in the case.
So she made rulings affecting persons she had no authority over, refused to consider she lacked the jurisdiction, and then recited from the bench how she though the law SHOULD be rather than how it was.
She felt so sure of herself that she allowed them to appeal right away… and the appeals court had a field day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That is the one fact that has bothered me for a long time. Both Prenda and Righthaven managed to game the system for YEARS and, for the most part, got away with it, unscathed. When does the “Old Boys” network end? When does the “justice” meted out to the little people extend to the big bad lawyers?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“That is the one fact that has bothered me for a long time. Both Prenda and Righthaven managed to game the system for YEARS and, for the most part, got away with it, unscathed. When does the “Old Boys” network end? When does the “justice” meted out to the little people extend to the big bad lawyers?”

By now it’s well known that the Prenda caper was a massive nationwide extortion scheme based on fraud and deception. There was a time in this country’s history when such thieving scoundrels could expect to find themselves hanging by a rope from the nearest tree — swiftly and resolutely. John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy are in essence no different from horse thieves in the Old West, and they rightly deserve to be treated as such. Though sadly, the days of ‘frontier justice’ in this country are long gone.

It’s a shame to see a bunch of crooked lawyers that (as usual) continue to go about exploiting all the loopholes in the system, dragging it out and burdening everyone with expensive legal costs — and even many months later, are neither in jail nor on trial. It seems incredible that someone can swindle the public out of millions of dollars, yet remain scot-free for so long. But that’s our modern lawyer-created-and-run “justice” system for you.

DB (profile) says:

I’m expecting that judge Howell will accept the dismissal notice.

It’s not a motion. The judge doesn’t need to do anything. The recommendation from the appeals court to consider sanctions is not binding. She can just close the docket and take no further action.

The dismissal without prejudice is certainly tactical, to avoid paying costs. But it’s defensible as nothing was decided except for lack of jurisdiction. It’s very unlikely that the case will be refiled.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

Prenda has always used the Deny, Deflect, Delay when they are in trouble with a case they are litigating, and this one is no different.

The fact that Judge Beryl A. Howell initial order allowing Prenda to proceed to victimize a thousand internet subscribers was a travesty to begin with.

Judge Beryl A. Howell was a former RIAA Lobbyist who when hearing this case couldn’t separate her past beliefs to make a order that was fair and impartial and based in law and not her personally beliefs which was contrary to the oath she took as a judge.

Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy are trying to weasel out of this case before they get saddled with costs. The Only way they get out of this is if Judge Beryl A. Howell allows them to do it.

If that happens it will be a sign that Judge Beryl A. Howell still can not separate her former profession from the position she holds as a Judge.

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...