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.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 1:07am

    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.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 1:45am

    "without" prejudice?

    i notice that they try to dismiss it without prejudice... does that mean they're currently judge-shopping and will be re-filing the same action immediately after?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 3:16am

    Cowards, the lot of them.

    I kinda hope the court forces them to keep pursuing the case to its bitter, not-good-for-Prenda end.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 3:25am

    If there has been no answer (either by a specific defendant or by joined Does as one) how pray tell did it get to the appeals stage?

    Or am I missing some strange procedural structure that the USA has and no where else?

    Personally I'd like to see the specify involuntary dismissal WITH prejudice.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 3:25am

    I want to play.

    My God, this makes me want to infringe on the stuff they placed on the net to be shared so I can be part of this fun too.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Annonimus, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 4:20am

    A letter to Prenda

    Dear Prenda

    TV Tropes is not a website for guiding your life to optimum efficiency.

    Also in Real Life the Attack! Attack... Retreat! Retreat! trope( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AttackAttackRetreatRetreat ) usually does not allow for the retreat part to work out.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 4:22am

    And yet they are still an entity able to practice law.

    The farce continues. Gooooooo USA!

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Quiet Lurcker, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 4:46am

    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.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 5:05am

    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.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 5:07am

    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?
    .

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 5:20am

    Re: "without" prejudice?

    The judge can refuse the dismissal, however.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    DB (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 5:50am

    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.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 6:20am

    Re:

    You do correctly identify one of Prenda and gang's attributes as cowardice. But they are far, far worse than mere cowards.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re: "without" prejudice?

    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Judge Howell rolls by her own rulebook and has given them everything they ever wanted at every step of the way.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 6:28am

    Re: Re:

    When more people declare very loudly "Enough!".

    This is just 1 cog in a much larger, very broken system. Until the public makes enough noise to get laws changed, we will get more of the same. We also might want to find a better poster child...

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 6:46am

    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.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    but they only went after porn stealing scum so it's all good.
    /sarcasm

    Sadly there are still people out there who do not grasp what actually went on in all of this, staying secure in the delusion that lawyers are all upstanding people, and the system would NEVER let this move forward.

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 8:54am

    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.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    CK20XX (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 10:38am

    It's like a video game.

    Geeze Louise, Prenda, haven't you ever played an RPG or something? You can't run from boss encounters!

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 6th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

    Re: It's like a video game.

    You can when the 'boss' is on your side, as the judge is in this case.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2014 @ 8:51pm

    Shari is bragging on Facebook about how she met some people her husband slept with. Wtf is wrong with these people?

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

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