Righthaven Fails To Pay Attorneys Fees Ordered By The Court, Court Asked To Declare Righthaven In Contempt

from the grubstaked dept

Ah, Righthaven. The company is now building up a history of not paying, even after a court orders it to pay. While there have been rumors swirling about filing for bankruptcy, in the meantime, the company just seems to be ignoring court orders. As you may recall, back in June, Righthaven lost one of its many cases (and many losses) to Wayne Hoehn, who Righthaven had sued despite not properly securing the copyrights in question. The court found this so egregious that it ordered Righthaven to pay $34,045.50 in legal fees to the Randazza Group, which had represented Hoehn, by September 14th.

Well, September 15th rolled around... and no money, as you can see from the filing below. Righthaven had asked the court for a stay to grant it more time, but the court had not ruled either way, meaning that the company should have paid up. Hoehn had even offered to give it more time if Righthaven would post bond to show that it could pay. Righthaven chose not to respond.

Because of all of this, on Friday, Hoehn asked the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of court, to appoint "a receiver to manage Righthaven's remaining business and assets, and to require the company to post $148,118 in cash or via a bond with the court. Why the higher number? That's the calculated value of the additional fees expended since the original ruling, plus the anticipated costs of the appeal that Righthaven has indicated its planning.

Late on Sunday, Hoehn/Randazza kicked it up a notch, filing for a Writ of Execution (embedded below), which would allow for the potential seizure of Righthaven bank accounts and property in order to attempt to get the amount ordered by the court.

It seems likely that Righthaven simply can't pay. I wonder how it feels to be on the receiving end of a judicial system ordering the company to pay up more than they have. It seems kind of ironic, since it tried to put hundreds of individuals and companies in that exact position via its business model.

Filed Under: attorneys fees, contempt, copyright
Companies: righthaven


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Scote, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:18am

    The *bare* right to sue is not transferable

    The bare right to sue is not transferable. You can't keep all of your rights to use a work and transfer just the right to sue. The right to sue is inseparable from the various rights to exploit a work.

    The RIAA suits have the record labels as co plaintiffs--they are a party to the suit. If Stephens Media had just done that and hired Gibson to sue as a *law firm* then there would be no issue of standing--but they didn't. Stephens Wanted to distance itself from the lawsuits, both from the bad publicity one gets from suing masses of people including customers for de minimus use of news paper stories, and from the legal liability of loosing suits and having to pay attorney fees and costs of opposing council. So, Stephens Media conspired with Righthaven to create the sham transfer of copyrights so the Righthaven would sue under its own name even though it didn't actually own the rights to the works.

Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.