Judge Orders Prenda / AF Holdings To Show The Original 'Salt Marsh' Signature; This Ought To Be Good

from the we'll-be-waiting dept

On Friday, we wrote about how Prenda was in trouble in another case, this one in Northern California. Judge Edward Chen has wasted little time in issuing a ruling, with the key part being a demand that "AF Holdings" produce the original document supposedly signed by "Salt Marsh," the supposed owner of AF Holdings. If you haven't been following this case that closely, on one of the many (sometimes conflicting or confusing) documents filed by "AF Holdings" -- the shell company that many suspect is really Prenda lawyers in disguise, even though everyone claims they have no idea who owns it -- was "signed" by "Salt Marsh," claiming to be the owner.
Now, as you may recall, it was in this very case that there was a big deposition taken of Paul Hansmeier as a person knowledgeable about AF Holdings, in which he did absolutely everything to avoid answering questions about Salt Marsh. When asked about the signature, Hansmeier gave one of his many ridiculous answers:
My testimony was that I don't know what the exact name of the trust is. If the name of the trust is Salt Marsh, then Salt Marsh is the owner. If the name of the trust is not Salt Marsh, then --
But there were a few problems with this, beyond the fact that almost no one believes this. First up, Salt Marsh is not a person, but the signature requires a statement that the person signing needs to have read an ADR certification handbook, and obviously a non-person can't read anything (let alone sign). But then there's the interesting aside about one Anthony Saltmarsh, who used to live with John Steele's sister. When questioned on this back during the deposition, Hansmeier tapdanced even more than normal.
Q. So returning to these corporate representatives. Have there been any other corporate representatives other than Alan Cooper, Mark Lutz for AF Holdings?
A. I can think one of other corporate representative.
Q. And who is that?
A. And that would Anthony Saltmarsh.
Q. Where does Mr. Saltmarsh reside?
A. I don't know where Mr. Saltmarsh resides.
Q. Was Mr. Saltmarsh ever compensated for acting as a corporate representative for AF Holdings?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Exhibit 101 and 102. Those are both the ADRs that are signed by Salt Marsh. I believe you testified you thought that that might be of the name the trust that owns AF Holdings. Could that be a misspelling of Anthony Saltmarsh?
A. The only thing I can say about these documents is that if you wanted me to come prepared to testify about them, you may have included them as exhibits to the notice or supplement the notice with the documents. You're asking me is it possible that Salt Marsh as spelled on here is a misspelling of the name Anthony Saltmarsh?
Q. Perhaps an alias would be a better word for it.
A. Or an alias for Salt Marsh. I'm a bit skeptical of that theory because it says AF Holdings owner and Anthony Saltmarsh is not an owner of AF Holdings.
Uh huh. As as part of this case, the defense attorneys noted that the document filed indicates an electronic acknowledgement of an actual signature. And they wanted to see the original.... which the judge has now granted:
Finally, the Court addresses Mr. Navasca’s request that it order AF to produce the original of an ADR certification that was e-filed by AF as Docket No. 8. The ADR certification that was e-filed does not contain any actual signature from an AF representative; rather, there is simply the following e-signature: “/s/ Salt Marsh, AF Holdings Owner.” Docket No. 8 (ADR certification). As Mr. Navasca points out, under the Civil Local Rules, AF’s counsel should have maintained a copy of the ADR certification containing the original signature as a part of its files. See Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3) (providing that, in the case of a Signatory who is not an ECF user, the actual filer of the document “shall maintain records . . . for subsequent production for the Court, if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by a party, until one year after the final resolution of the action (including appeal, if any)”). Because Mr. Navasca has asked the Court for relief encompassed by the Civil Local Rules, the Court grants the request. AF’s counsel is hereby ordered to produce the original of the ADR certification, containing the original signature of “Salt Marsh” by April 29, 2013. If AF’s current counsel does not have the original document, then it must contact former counsel to obtain the document. On April 29, AF’s current counsel shall also file a declaration with the Court, stating whether it was able to provide a copy of the original document and, if not, why not.
That ought to be rather interesting.

Separately, the court had some choice words about Paul Duffy's arguments last week trying to claim that the reason he dismissed the case was because of high bond requirements and the spoliation of evidence because of the use of CCleaner. The judge doesn't buy either reason at all. The spoliation argument is a dead end for many reasons, but mainly because there's no actual proof. The high bond requirement is similarly dismissed, because that bond can be required at any point, and the judge basically says "if you weren't willing to put up the bond, why did you file the lawsuit in the first place?"
The Court finds neither argument availing

As to spoliation, it is far from clear that there was any spoliation in the first instance. Notably, Judge Vadas instructed AF to “review the expert declaration that Navasca filed with his letter brief, to fully understand the purpose and effect of CCleaner.” Docket No. 50 (Order at 2). However, there is no evidence to suggest that AF did that or any other investigation into whether CCleaner would in fact irrevocably destroy electronic files. Furthermore, as the Court noted at the hearing, even if CCleaner did irrevocably destroy electronic files, that might actually work in AF’s favor; in other words, the stronger the evidence of improper spoliation, the better the chance AF stood of obtaining, e.g., an evidentiary sanction or adverse inference in its favor based on the spoliation.

Effectively conceding the weakness of its spoliation argument, AF focused at the hearing on the prohibitive cost of the undertaking. But the Court finds this position unconvincing for two reasons. First, AF ignores the fact that the Court stayed its undertaking ruling and expressly gave AF the opportunity to file a motion to reconsider. The Court even noted that AF could present evidence of its professed inability to pay. In spite of this, AF never took any action to move for reconsideration, opting instead for a voluntary dismissal. Cf. AF Holdings LLC v. Trinh, No. C-12- 2393 CRB (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 45) (Order at 2) (noting that a plaintiff can obtain relief from a bond requirement if unable to pay but that AF had offered no support for its contention that a bond is beyond its means). Second, to the extent AF suggests that it may be financially able to pay, but the bond is simply more than the value of the case, see Mot. at 2 (arguing that Plaintiff cannot “afford to tie up nearly $50,000 in capital simply in order to proceed with its claims against a single infringer”), it ignores the fact that a bond may be required in any given case in California (based on California specific law). As the plaintiff which initiated the action, AF knew at the outset that a bond might be required. A plaintiff cannot invoke the benefits of the judicial system without being prepared to satisfy its obligations as a litigant. Cf. AF Holdings LLC v. Magsumbol, No. 12-4221 SC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25572, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013) (in case in which AF moved for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice before court was able to rule on defendant’s motion to post an undertaking; denying AF’s motion because tendered reasons for requesting dismissal were not compelling – “Plaintiff brought this case knowing the rules of this jurisdiction and the risks of litigation, and now he seeks dismissal of his case without prejudice so that he can bring it another day”).
The case is not over, but it's clear the judge is paying attention. He cites the case in southern California presided over by Judge Otis Wright, and seems extremely skeptical of the story being told by Prenda. For now, though, we wait eagerly for Prenda to produce the "original" Salt Marsh signature as ordered by the court.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:28pm

    I get the strangest feeling that now that Prenda has been, once again, called out regarding yet another of the 'mystery owners' of one of their shell companies, they'll try and do the same thing that they did in the Cooper identity theft case, and shift their argument to claiming that it doesn't matter who signed what, only that it looked legal enough to sue over.

    If it does go that route though, hopefully the judge in this case will slap them down just as hard as judge Wright has.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Raul, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:32pm

    Next up in the batter's box, Judge Wright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    tomxp411 (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:38pm

    Popcorn, anyone?

    I am waiting for the part where this company simply implodes, leaving a small singularity in its wake - one that sucks all the other Copyright and Patent trolls in, forever ridding us of this nonsense.

    I am tired of these parasites on society.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Minimum Waged Shill, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:41pm

    But Mike, I thought you hate judges and were paid to go to Spain to lobby. Why the sudden change of opinion?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:59pm

    The grinding wheels of Justice are grinding at whats left of my faith in the system.
    Justice delayed is Justice denied.
    If they were not lawyers they would have scooped the whole lot of them and all of the toys to get to the bottom of this crap.

    Its like watching a ship sink... in jello.

    While I'm so happy that the legal system has taken notice, the speed with which this is moving makes glaciers look fast.
    Of course I am saddened that the rest of the media is blissfully ignoring this case, one wonders how much of that is being decided by the ownership to avoid anyone questioning copyright law.

    One hopes that the hubris high keeps Pretenda from having Pepsi Syndrome 'accidents' with all of the evidence before its finally gathered.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:06pm


    Get Your Popcorn! Get your popcorn here ....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    anonymouse, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:19pm


    I find it amazing that the court cannot find the owners of the holding companies, or at least the names of the people that registered them and on whose behalf they registered them. Simple, open and shut case then as to who is doing what illegally.
    Once they have the names of the owners of the holding companies, yes i am thinking along the lines of steele and hammershite but maybe there are others involved behind the scenes. I doubt it but it would be interesting to see what names were put forward.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    How far does this nonsense actually have to go before there are perjury charges?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Donnicton, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:21pm

    Re: Popcorn!!

    "Do you just follow my husband around wherever he goes?"

    "Lady, he's putting my kids through college!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:46pm


    Government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies for private/commercial use should be abolished.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Digdug (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:04pm


    Until someone, somewhere is caught in a verifiable lie. Shrugging your shoulders and babbling incoherently in court are unfortunately not grounds for perjury. Here's hoping.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Digitari, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:15pm


    things like that are for the "little" people, not for Esquire's. they are "special".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Re:

    They were done outside of the US in a country that has 'privacy' laws (like are enjoyed by the ultra rich who hide assets in offshore accounts) to keep the curious from digging.

    The fact the lawyers are unable/unwilling to give any information beyond circular finger pointing bodes badly for them.

    A holding company didn't hire them itself. They can be hired to work on its behalf but unless the holding company is SkyNet LLC. it requires a human making decisions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:30pm

    imagine their surprise when the mysterious marsh shows up in court in person wearing his red poofball hat and pointing out that his name is stan, not salt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 6:09pm

    Bawk bawk bawk, Chicken Joe. Or is it out_of_the_blue's turn tonight to post naughty things on your wife's laptop?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    RD, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 6:51pm


    "But Mike, I thought you hate judges and were paid to go to Spain to lobby. Why the sudden change of opinion?"

    Right, so you create a strawman (mike is being paid to go to spain to lobby) and then ask him to explain YOUR accusation?

    Here is your answer AJ:


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:59pm

    Shouldn't the judge ask for a copy of Anthony Saltmarsh's signature, for comparison? Or would that be beyond the scope of the judge's powers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 8:45pm


    It may or may not be beyond his powers to order such a signature to be sent to the court or comparison, but if I were in the shoes of the defense lawyer, might be worth it to send a polite letter to the person, explaining the situation and asking for his signature to compare with, as this may turn into yet another case of a 'CEO who didn't know he owned a company' like Cooper.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 9:23pm

    Re: Re:

    My post is sarcasm

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Dingledangle the Swung, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 3:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It does encourage the opinion that anonymous entities should not be allowed to initiate litigation (with exceptions made for any safety concerns. If privacy laws don't allow the responsible individual(s) to be named, then the litigation should not be allowed to proceed. The individual(s) details don't have to be published, but should be known to the court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 4:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thats the best catch 22 part, is Does have to make motions to get permission to proceed anonymously, and must Judges were loathe to grant that... to people being sued by an anonymous corporate entity no one seems to know anything about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re:


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 6:57am

    Herein lies the answer to trolling

    Bonds. Make the trolls (copyright or patent) put up bonds. One for each settlement letter sent out. The bond must be sufficient to cover the expected cost of litigating the case. If the defendant settles, then the bond is returned (minus an administrative charge), if not, then the bond is converted to cover court costs for the case, which is then automatically filed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 3:18pm

    The defense attorney in this case has been hitting the bond angle hard, and the Northern District has imposed them in at least 3 AF Holdings cases. California has a law requiring non-residents to post a bond if their case is relatively weak. Prenda basically ran each time they were forced to put their money behind their airtight claims!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 10:40pm

    Re: Re:

    Except he was alleged the BF of a relative of Steele's, and I'm sure he might have already gotten texts warning him to say nothing if people ask questions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 10:42pm

    Re: Herein lies the answer to trolling

    But they only stand to be awarded $150K at trial then the well is dry. Then they have to pay for experts, overhead, etc... It is so much simpler to just let them keep dinking away a few thousand at a time with no overhead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Hide this ad »


Email This

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