Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money

from the oh,-look-at-that dept

We noted last week that Judge Lewis Kaplan (like so many other judges who have copyright troll Richard Liebowitz in their courts) was fed up with Richard Liebowitz's unwillingness to follow fairly straightforward orders, including that he produce the retainer agreement with his clients, as well as present evidence that the client knew of and approved the specific lawsuits at hand. Judge Kaplan did this in at least two (and possibly more?) cases. In the case we mentioned last week -- the Chosen Figure LLC v. Smiley Miley case -- despite already receiving a benchslap from the judge for not providing the retainer agreement, Liebowitz has filed some random emails between his own staff and... his client's girlfriend? That does include an email from his client saying he doesn't check email much so to have his girlfriend on email chains instead, though it's not clear that this will be enough to satisfy the judge's request for authorization for "this case specifically," but we'll see.

However, much more interesting is that, for what appears to be the first time, Liebowitz has revealed his retainer agreement with clients. And, man, do his clients get a raw deal. Liebowitz gets 50% of any proceeds after costs which come out of any settlement received. In other words, more than half (potentially a lot more than half) of the money from any settlement goes to Liebowitz. That would mean that Richard Liebowitz has a larger financial stake in the outcome of these cases than his own clients.

Also, in typical bad lawyering fashion, Liebowitz tells his clients there's a possibility that they might recover some fees from the other lawyers, but leaves out that his own clients may be on the hook for the other side's legal fees. And this is not theoretical as Liebowitz's track record includes costing his clients money in legal fees. Yet his retainer agreement seems to suggest the only reason his clients should think about legal fees is in how they might get them from the other side:

The Copyright Act includes a provision in which attorney’s fees may be awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. However, such an award is within the discretion of the court and not guaranteed. In the event that the Firm recovers attorney’s fees for You or You are awarded attorney’s fees, the attorney’s fees recovered shall be applied against the amount the Firm would be entitled to under this agreement. If any attorney’s fees award exceeds the amount of the Contingency Fee, whether agreed upon through settlement, awarded by judgment or otherwise, the Firm shall be entitled to the full attorney’s fee award.

That is bad lawyering to say the least, and sketchy to boot. It also might lead to some trouble for Liebowitz. In NY, where this case is filed, the courts have set up a framework for determining if a contingency fee is "unconscionable or unreasonable" and one of the factors is whether or not the client is fully informed about the ramifications of bringing a lawsuit -- which should include the possibility that they (the client) may be on the hook for legal fees if the case goes badly (as they so often do for Richard Liebowitz clients).

Besides the sheer amount of the fee, another factor to consider—and perhaps the most important—in determining the unconscionability of a contingent fee agreement, is whether the client was fully informed upon entering into the agreement with the attorney.... Where a fully informed client with equal bargaining power knowingly and voluntarily affirms an existing fee arrangement that might otherwise be considered voidable as unconscionable, ratification can occur so long as the client has both a full understanding of the facts that made the agreement voidable and knowledge of his or her rights as a client.

Here, it appears that Liebowitz failed to so inform his client. Given how judges are already skeptical of Liebowitz, this could come back to bite him.

For what it's worth, Liebowitz has filed same retainer agreement in another of his cases before Judge Kaplan, along with email exchanges with that client. This case is the Rodriguez v. Whole World Water LLC case. The email exchange there is noteworthy. Liebowitz tells his client Erika Rodriguez that he believed Whole World Water is going out of business, but offered him $500 in response to the lawsuit. Rodriguez tells him:

I would accept the $500 offer, if they are in the process of closing and dissolving the company it wouldn't make much sense to do anything else.

Liebowitz ignores that and says:

Okay, I will give it once last push if I can anything more, but it does look like they are closing.

Rodriguez emailed him back soon after:

I made a mistake in my last email.

I meant to say that I accept the $500 offer, if they are folding there is no need to push for more.

Of course, she didn't make a mistake. Richard just seemed to want to push for more. Of course, given the retainer, and the amounts that Liebowitz charges, $500 wouldn't even cover his "cost" meaning that that money would go straight to Liebowitz, not to Rodriguez in the first place. Also, this particular exchange shows what a sleazebag Liebowitz is. The company that shut down here, Whole World Water, didn't just randomly copy Rodriguez's photo. The email exchange notes that they actually tagged her on Instagram when they posted the photo -- suggesting they were trying to promote her work. No, that does not mean this is not infringing, but in such cases, the normal thing to do is to at least alert the company that they don't have permission and they should take down the photo -- not immediately go to court and sue a company that was clearly in fragile economic straits given the fact that they shut down soon after being sued over this.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright troll, retainer, richard liebowitz


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 20 Aug 2020 @ 10:12am

    Sounds like a Prenda Law School grad.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 10:57am

    Amazing how you still don’t get it

    There are reasons RL has a boatload of good clients offering these terms and that they stay with him despite the uninformed critics writing crap, the occasional hostile judge and rare bad outcome. These things you miss or don’t acknowledge help justify his fee, which is not excessive given the facts.

    1. He does not just file the cases, he finds them for his clients. This is a managerial responsibility that justifies a larger fee than what other attorneys charge.
    2. He takes cases that are often smaller or more speculative than most attorneys, which justifies a larger share to compensate for the additional risk and smaller upside.

    At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him.

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

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:13am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      A troll wearing sock-puppet?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:15am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      Do his “clients” know RL is representing them? He’s already been caught out on that front.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:33am

        Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

        Moreover as this article notes he seems to be quite happy to take liberties relating to orders from his 'clients', reading them in a manner most beneficial to him and only backing off when it was explicitly spelled out to him what they wanted, which is hardly putting the client's interests first as a lawyer should be.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 2:27pm

        Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

        Alleged once. Disputed. Unproven. Think for yourself much?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 7:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

          All the time, both simple and complex thoughts. I even think about ethics and the fact that the judge had to even ask the question is alarming, in my humble opinion.

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

    • icon
      aerinai (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:16am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      Liebowitz, is that you?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:17am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      so the thread goes something like this:

      lawyer to potential client- you don't know you've been wronged, but you have. Let me make you some money on the wrong.
      new client client - cool, every little bit helps!
      lawyer - does some lawyer shit
      lawyer to client - I did lawyer stuff and we lost. btw you owe the other lawyer his fees.
      client - aww shucks, well at least you're a nice guy mr lawyer.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:42am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him.

      Nah, there's really no reason to question my carping and criticism. There's plenty of fools out there for him to exploit. Look how many morons donated to build a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 12:23pm

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      This is a managerial responsibility that justifies a larger fee than what other attorneys charge.

      From the retainer agreement:

      Such percentage shall be computed on the net sum recovered after deducting from the amount recovered fees, expenses, and disbursements properly chargeable to the enforcement of the claim or prosecution of the action....

      [If the client terminates the agreement they] will owe LLF all expenses and costs and the greater of: 1) the reasonable hourly rate spent by LLF investigating ... claims up to the date of discharge.

      The biggest fraud here may well be the "reasonable hourly rate", since hey, if you assign a paralegal or someone with an actual law degree to search for infringements, that hourly rate may be quite large indeed. And there are no limits set upon the costs the LLF can incur in "investigating", and no reasonable way of proving or disproving such hourly claims.

      At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him.

      The average client is going to
      a) not be aware of the judicial news,
      b) not care about the news in the hope of a payment down the road,
      c) not recall that they "hired" this bozo to hunt down infringements on their behalf,
      d) read the recent judgement that Leibowitz was ordered to send them and decide to terminate their agreement,
      and possibly e) discover that Leibowitz will then bill them for man-months of "investigation".

      the occasional hostile judge and rare bad outcome.

      It hasn't been "occasional", nor "rare".

      At some point you, friend, will have to accept that the average lawyer isn't going to incur repeated and severe sanctions - and over such a spectrum of professional behavior - such as your buddy RL has.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

        His clients are not unsophisticated. Many have been doing enforcement for years. They have seen their results and are en masse happy with Richard.

        Why doesn’t someone do some real reporting and interview Richard or his clients?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

          Why don't you, since you seem to have such a vested interest in how Liebowitz is perceived? What's it to you?

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

          You seem to know him so well, why don't you hook us up with the evidence you're using to make your claims?

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 12:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

          "Why doesn’t someone do some real reporting and interview Richard or his clients?"

          Because we're so far past that point that the fact-finding is now done by judges and courts increasingly unhappy with the conniving weasel in question.

          Damn it, Baghdad Bob, did you abandon Steele and Hansmeier so quickly in favor of that not-quite-new flavor of "crook"? For shame.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:43pm

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      This is a managerial responsibility...

      He's been cited for sucking at that, too.

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

    • icon
      Rico R. (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 2:43pm

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      ...despite the uninformed critics writing crap, the occasional hostile judge and rare bad outcome.

      Richard Liebowitz's bad outcomes are rare? Welp, I guess pigs must be able to fly now, with snow in Florida's forecast tomorrow!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 3:50pm

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      I'll refute your points in order:

      1. RL files motions as attorney of record for his clients. If he performed a "managerial" role, why is he the sole attorney in these sanctions and judicial orders? If he worked with other attorneys, the judges in these cases would certainly have made their names part of the record.
      2. His representation agreement is extremely biased towards him, and from my point of view fails to cover the liabilities that come with an unfavorable legal outcome.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 12:50am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      You forgot;

      1. He saves the "client" the effort of contacting them and represents them anyway.

      "At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him."

      That's just it though - they haven't. Hell, given that many of Richard's clients don't even know he's representing them...it's Liebowitz's own version of the Mormon Baptism of the Dead.

      As for why they "stick" with him, it might be because he's so notoriously short of truth he gets regularly chewed out by courtroom judges for being a conniving lying weasel. There's never been a shortage of gullible fools willing to follow whoever keeps promising that any day now gagging bagfuls of tort money will be theirs.

      "Amazing how you still don’t get it"

      Oh, we get it all right. Liebowitz is getting desperate because his Barnum act has been revealed and he's nowhere as charismatic as Barnum so can't make it work.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:39am

      Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it

      perhaps 99% of his 'clients' don't actually exist.

      He could be suing "on their behalf" using fake email addresses to bounce messages back and forth....then he just keeps all the winnings....

      at some point Judge Kaplan should call some of these people to physically appear in court...

      Then like Saltwater Marsh before them, they'll have 'reasons' not to appear...

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 11:26am

    Stupidity should be painful

    While I can't find it in me to be surprised that even in his contracts with his clients he finds a way to screw them over and put his own interests first, and I do hope it blows up in his face, I also can't find it in me to offer any sympathy to the idiots who hire him for reasons I've noted in the past.

    Sign with a known liar and scammer and you don't get to be taken serious when you're surprised that he lied to and scammed you too.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 12:01pm

    Piling on is fun, but

    I too think there is more to this one-sided story. His cases are good. How come other attorneys did not acquire these cases or poach his clients.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 12:30pm

      Re: Piling on is fun, but

      How come other attorneys did not acquire these cases or poach his clients.

      Competence?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:48pm

        Re: Re: Piling on is fun, but

        I was going to go with honesty and a single shred of legal ethics, personally.

        I get that joking about lawyers' lack of ethics is hilarious, but really all the ethics you'd need to not involve yourself in copyright-based scamming is to be better than Paul Hansmeier. That's not a high bar to clear even for lawyers.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:41am

          Re: Re: Re: Piling on is fun, but

          to go under the Paul Hannseier Bar requires expensive equipment.

          The type that the Boring Company uses, but made lava-proof.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 12:54pm

      Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

      His cases are good.

      Which of course explains why he is regularly sanctioned and called out for lying in court, because as everyone knows those are the hallmarks of an amazing lawyer filing great cases.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

        You are confusing lawyering with the merits of the case. He has filed and achieved good outcomes thousands of times, despite high profile flubs. How many cases has he lost on the merits?????

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:47pm

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          Why don't you pony up the stats, since you are the one making claims?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 3:52pm

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          Even a broken clock has to be right twice a day. What is his W/L percentage anyway, since you seem familiar with his entire record?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:06pm

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          It's quite peculiar that you can claim he has "achieved good outcomes thousands of times" and have yet to produce even one.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:43pm

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          How many cases has he lost on the merits?????

          Problem with that question is that the numbers are going to be heavily screwed as he tends to run like the coward he is when the other side looks like it's about to curb-stomp him, similar to the losers in video-gaming who will quit a match when it looks like they're about to lose so as to avoid having the loss on their record.

          Someone could cut and run the second they think they're about to lose and their win/loss ration would look amazing, but that wouldn't be due to their skill in anything other than running away.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:44pm

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          How many cases has he lost on the merits?????

          Took me a while to get, but ah, the good ol' copyright enforcement chestnut. Have everything cleared by the out-of-court settlement phase so there's no court case to argue the merits on. Because goodness knows, every time the judge asks to see better evidence that isn't a hastily scribbled (read: random number generated) IP address, the Malibu Media operators run like hell with their tramp-stamped tail between their legs.

          Lawyering is over merits of the case, sunshine. If your case had merits lawyering wouldn't take center stage.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:59am

          Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

          How many of his clients have EVER physically turned up to court?

          It's something judges should be asking for, because I'm betting a good many of them don't even KNOW he's representing them at all. If they even exist.

          Fake emails back n forth a few times..change the header.....poof! new customer.

          And illegally keep all the money

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

      • icon
        Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 7:51am

        Liebowitz failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee

        Also funny (I just uploaded it to RECAP):

        ADVISORY NOTICE TO ATTORNEY AND COURT: Under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(a), RICHARD LIEBOWITZ was administratively removed from the court's attorney roll and barred from filing electronically under CM/ECF for failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee. Counsel must complete a Bar/ECF application through counsel's Attorney Services Portal account and pay the full application fee to be restored to the attorney roll and CM/ECF. Upon reinstatement, counsel must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance in this case. (Text Only Entry) (mfred) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

        https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14573517/adlife-marketing-communications-company-in c-v-albertsons-companies/

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

        • icon
          Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:34am

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          Another one freshly on RECAP:

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Mr. Liebowitz shall be prepared to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be required to associate with an experienced Colorado federal practitioner as a condition of continuing to prosecute this case on 5/7/2020 11:00 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 5/05/2020. (slibi, ) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

          https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15658455/mondragon-v-nosrak-llc/

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

          • icon
            Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:52am

            Re: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

            So much winning!

            ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to show cause in writing, by May 9, 2019, why sanctions should not be imposed - pursuant to Rules 11 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Court's inherent authority - for filing a meritless lawsuit; for continuing to prosecute that lawsuit even after being presented with evidence of its lack of merit; for failure to comply with this Court's orders; and for failure to appear as directed at the conference earlier today. Defendant shall file any response, including any and all billing records and evidence of costs incurred as a result of this litigation, by May 16, 2019. SO ORDERED. Show Cause Response due by 5/16/2019. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/2/2019) (ne) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14674449/rice-v-nbcuniversal-media-llc/

            ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The complaint was filed in this action on December 2, 2018. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 6(a), service was to be made by March 4, 2019. More than two months after this deadline, the docket still does not reflect service on defendant. Consequently, on or before May 23, 2019, plaintiff shall either file proof of timely service on the docket or show cause for his failure to effect timely service of the summons and complaint. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff's counsel is directed to provide a copy of this order to his client and to defendant. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 5/16/2019. (Siegel, Max)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8346845/harbus-v-franco-belli-plumbing-and-heating-and-so ns-inc/

            ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that on or before January 16, 2019, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on the Plaintiff's failure to diligently pursue this suit and to comply with this Court's orders. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to Senior United States District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson. (LAC) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7718016/sadowski-v-the-huse-publishing-company/

            O RDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than June 19, 2019, Mr. Liebowitz shall show cause (a) why the $500 sanction imposed in 18-CV-9416 should not become immediately payable and (b) why, in addition to that $500 sanction, he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 28 U.S.C. ยง 1927, and/or the inherent powers of the Court for failing to comply with the Court's order of May 21, 2019, see Dkt. 9. Such showing shall be made by affidavit and a memorandum of law compliant with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(2). Courtesy copies of any papers filed shall be sent to the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/7/2019) (ks) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14881649/walsh-v-nylon-media-inc/

            ORDER - Attorney Liebowitz is DISQUALIFIED as counsel for plaintiff in the instant Masi matter. This order shall be entered also in the Sands matter, but no further action is necessary in that matter now closed. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/14/2020. (Collins, S.) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16030414/sands-v-epicstream-llc/

            ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), that Plaintiff Anthony Ayiomamitis shall show cause in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant National Space Society for lack of timely service. Show Cause Response due by 8/10/2020.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 07/27/2020. (AAT) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17084901/ayiomamitis-v-national-space-society/

            Co unsel for Defendant filed a notice of appearance on May 21, 2020. (Dkt. 6). Local Rule CV-16(c) requires the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court no later than 60 days after any appearance of any defendant. (See also 2d. Am. Emergency Order, Dkt. 11, at 1 (noting that emergency procedures supplement the Local Rules, to which parties are still subject)). On July 21, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file their overdue proposed scheduling order by July 28, 2020. (Order, Dkt. 13, at 1). To date, the parties have not done so. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall each show cause, in writing, by August 5, 2020, as to why the Court should not impose sanctions against them or their counsel for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17130428/mustard-v-infowars-llc/

            ORDER. By order dated January 30, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint no later than February 1, 2017. Dkt. No. 31. The Court observes that Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 3, 2017, two days late. Dkt. No. 32. Despite Plaintiffs untimely filing, the Court will accept Plaintiffs amended complaint, but sua sponte extends the deadline for Defendants to file their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint until February 7, 2017. Accordingly, the deadline for Defendants to file their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint is extended to February 7, 2017. Plaintiff is reminded to show cause by letter and supporting affidavit why the Court should not order Plaintiff to pay Defendants fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs untimely filing of his amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff is directed to respond to the Courts order to show cause no later than February 8, 2017. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on February 3, 2017) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524466/martinka-v-time-inc/

            JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff should submit an order to show cause for a default judgment by July 3, 2020 or the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED.

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17154508/trinkhaus-v-afar-media-llc/

            The Court ORDERS Richard Liebowitz to SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than October 22, 2019 why he should not be sanctioned by the Court for continuing to appear in the Northern District of California after the Court ordered that he no longer is a member of the bar in the Northern District of California.

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16249344/masi-v-the-young-turks-inc/

            ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than October 3, 2018 why the undersigned should not issue a Report and Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to post the bond required by my Order dated July 11, 2018 (Docket Item 18). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/27/2018) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (ne) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6915266/leibowitz-v-galore-media-inc/

            ORDER: An Opinion issued February 28, 2018 imposed a monetary sanction in the amount of $10,000 on Richard Liebowitz. On March 9, Mr. Liebowitz paid that amount to the Clerk of Court and moved for reconsideration. The Court granted reconsideration in part on March 14 in an Opinion that reduced the amount of monetary sanctions to $2,000 and imposed an educational sanction of four continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours in ethics and professionalism, to be completed by July 31, 2018. The Court ordered Mr. Liebowitz to file certificate(s) of attendance with the Court attesting to his participation by August 14, 2018. He has failed to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that a show cause hearing will take place August 24 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 18B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, at which Mr. Liebowitz shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to this Courts inherent powers, for failure to file the certificates of CLE attendance on or before August 14. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 8/15/2018) (gr) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6173320/steeger-v-jms-cleaning-services-llc/

            ORDE R: A pretrial conference was held on March 1, 2019. As set forth at the conference, counsel for plaintiff was ordered to post a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $10,000 on or before March 4, 2019. The Clerk of Court has no record of the bond being posted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs counsel shall post a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $10,000 by March 8, 2019 at 12:00 p.m. or show cause by March 8 at 5:00 p.m. why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to comply with court orders. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/7/2019) (gr) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8183592/mango-v-democracy-now-productions-inc/

            OR DER: Plaintiff filed this action on October 09, 2017 but has failed to serve defendant within 90 days of filing violation Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). For failure to prosecute, the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given an additional thirty (30) days to show cause why the case should be reopened (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/22/2018) (js) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6167051/mango-v-urbanlinx-media-inc/

            ORDER: Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 20, 2017 by filing a complaint. More than 90 days have elapsed since the action was commenced, and Plaintiffs have failed to provide any proof that the complaint has been served. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiffs, within two weeks of the date of this order - that is, on or before March 7, 2018 - either (1) file proof that the complaint was timely served on Defendant or (2) show cause in writing why an extension of the time limit for service is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/21/2018) (ras) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6625753/masi-v-turtleback-books-inc/

            ORDER:On March 5, 2018, the Court granted defendants motion for a bond. Reynolds v. Hearst, 17cv56270 (DLC), 2018 WL 1229840 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018) (March 5 Opinion). The March 5 opinion required the plaintiff to file a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) by Friday, March 16. On March 20, the action was stayed. On March 29, the Court denied plaintiffs March 12 motion for reconsideration of the March 5 Opinion. 17cv56270 (DLC), 2018 WL 1602867 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018). To date, the plaintiff has not paid the bond. Local Civil Rule 54.2 provides: (See Order).....Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff show cause before this Court, at Courtroom 18B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, on June 8, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/24/2018) (gr) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

            https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6147607/reynolds-v-hearst-communications-inc/

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Aug 2020 @ 12:05am

              Re: Re: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

              "So much winning!"

              Indeed. Liebowitz has truly demonstrated standards of excellence almost on par with those used by Prenda and ACS:Law.

              Added icing on that cake would be that despite records like the ones you linked to we still have a sock-puppeting troll, even in a small blog like this, desperately trying to die on the hill of Liebowitz's "merit" record.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 1:05am

      Re: Piling on is fun, but

      News flash for the left behind...putting up a one-man army of sock puppets to try to salvage what can not be salvaged isn't helping Liebowitz's case...and in fact only reveals that Richard isn't just a crap lawyers, even trolls trying to help him are inept.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:42pm

    Has he EVER won in court (never mind asking whether merits or bribery was involved)?

    Or have all his "wins" been extortion-shakedown "settlements OUT of court" because the defendant-victims, like the client-victims, don't know enough law to fight?

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      Seriously? He sues a lot of big media companies and they are not winning many motions to dismiss or MSJs. His cases have merit.

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

      • identicon
        Pixelation, 20 Aug 2020 @ 3:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Well Richard, we will accept your lack of a yes to the question as a resounding no.

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 4:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ask Buzzfeed. He just gave them a public spanking on a very significant case. So many sheep and jealous people on this thread. Bottom line: He is directly helping hundreds of people No other attorney was or he is doing it better. Funny how you sheep label him but not the businesses who repeatedly steal photos.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Odd that the Buzzfeed verdict hasn't been reported in the media--especially since so many tech journals follow all the copyright trolls and their cases.

            Perhaps, once again, there was no verdict?

            Nobody is disputing his skill as a shakedown artist or con man. The issue is the degree of incompetence in the skills honest lawyers have to have: you know, knowing the law, keeping up with court deadlines, filing the required paperwork, answering judges honestly, giving clients correct legal advice, accounting for money received in trust.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 6:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Thanks for citing a case where literally only Liebowitz's own website touts this piece of news, but just to humor you I went and did your Google research for you. Mind you, it does strike me as odd where the first page of results returned for "buzzfeed liebowitz" only turns up two articles about his victory out of 10 results. It's almost like the win isn't as significant as you hoped it would be.

            Of course, if your point is that Techdirt's coverage on all the times Liebowitz has fucked up doesn't count against the "hundreds of people" he has helped, then it stands to reason that one case you cite - which doesn't even merit mention on the scale that Prenda Law and Malibu Media cases have - doesn't negate the point that he's pulled all sorts of shenanigans on the courts. Which have declared him a copyright troll, independent of Techdirt's coverage. Look, if Techdirt's readers hurting Liebowitz's fee-fees affects you so much, I'll point you to a different source:

            Liebowitz Sues the MET and LOSES on Fair Use

            Liebowitz Can't Weasel Out of $100,000 Fee

            I don't know about you, but goofing on fair use and getting sanctioned for failing to register copyright are pretty significant warning signs.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 7:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Thanks for citing a case where literally only Liebowitz's own website touts this piece of news...

              Interesting. Would this be the same Liebowitz who's been cited and sanctioned dozens of times for lying to the courts? If so, is there the slightest possibility that he lied to the public on his website also? And if so, is there any credible witness to this alleged spanking?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 7:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                To be fair/clear, it's not only Liebowitz's site that mentions the case. Law360 mentions it too - but it is the same Liebowitz who's been cited and sanctioned.

                It does give one a pause for thought, though - suddenly there's three unique IP address geolocation snowflakes hemming and hawing because Liebowitz's performance in court is getting scrutinized. It's almost like they have a significant vested interest in his reputation...

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

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2020 @ 10:37pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  That has been rather noticeable, yes. TD writes up multiple articles in the past talking about Liebowitz's latest faceplant and/or benchslap and not a peep from anyone nuts enough to defend him, and yet this article goes out and suddenly 'several' ACs are trying to make him out to be some highly skilled lawyer who just happens to have the rare case of a vindictive judge being mean to him? Odd to say the least.

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

                  • icon
                    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 2:21am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "...yet this article goes out and suddenly 'several' ACs are trying to make him out to be some highly skilled lawyer who just happens to have the rare case of a vindictive judge being mean to him?"

                    We've seen this before though. When Prenda was in hot water I distinctly recall multiple brand spanking new AC's joining the defense, one man army fashion. One would spring to the defense of poor Steele and five minutes after that two or three other anonymous commenters would back the first one up with nothing more than a "hear, hear".

                    The irony is that the "one man army" sock puppet schtick was abandoned by any halfway serious troll or astroturfer long ago. It's just too obvious and carries too many tells unless the troll spends way more time and effort on the attempt than they can usually be arsed to muster.

                    So not only is Liebowitz a shit lawyer, even the troll coming out on his behalf is sub-par.

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2020 @ 10:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Use the internet much? News of his win is on several sites. https://petapixel.com/2020/08/18/photographer-wins-lawsuit-against-buzzfeed-sets-major-dmca-preceden t/

                Liebowitz is far from perfect, but his clients love him and he is filling a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2020 @ 12:05am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Uses the term "several" and provides only one link to an obscure website used by a niche community, classical element of copyright comedy.

                  but his clients love him

                  It's easy to love someone when you don't know he's secretly working your enforcement arm.

                  a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve

                  Or here's a hot take: Liebowitz jumps on these cases before other lawyers can provide competent legal counsel and advice, same way Prenda Law picked up porn clients that ended up skeptical about the efficacy of their methods, and Malibu Media engaged their lawyers in such a fantastic demonstration of big-brain plays their investors sued them.

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

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 21 Aug 2020 @ 12:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  and he is filling a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve.

                  It's the same argument that ambulance chasers use.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 1:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "...and he is filling a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve."

                  Being a shameless grifter able enough to convince sufficient suckers to sign on with his services and barely skilled enough to outrun them when his house of cards collapses?

                  I hate to break the apparent news but that "service" is amply filled by thousands of former ambulance chasers turned copyright lawyers. Of course, with RL now desperately trying to fill the shoes of Prenda his main competitor would be Rightscorp.

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

    • icon
      Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 7:59am

      Re: Liebowitz victories

      Let's see... I find one "victory", a default judgment for ~30 k$ in Bee Creek Photography v. Proact World LLC. The target seems a zombie, if not formally bankrupt for a few years already.
      https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17466444/bee-creek-photography-v-proact-world-llc/

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

      • icon
        Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:59am

        Re: Re: Liebowitz victories

        There are a few others like that but I finally found a "serious" victory: a whopping 750 $ (without attorney's fees) in Otto v. Hearst Communications

        GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On December 10, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Dkt. No. 85. A bench trial on damages was held on July 15, 2019. The Court held a teleconference on July 19, 2019, during which it orally delivered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dkt. No. 130. For the reasons stated on the record during that conference, the Court will enter judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $750.00. On January 23, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.

        https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6078947/otto-v-hearst-communications-inc/

        Is that even enough to cover filing fees?

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 9:26am

          Re: Re: Re: Liebowitz victories

          If the ruling didn't include attorney's fees I'm guessing that means the clients saw little if any of that, with most if not all of that going straight to Liebowitz, a result I'm sure the client is absolutely thrilled by.

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

  • icon
    Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 8:26am

    Going after the Denver Green Party

    The copyright litigation we need:

    Guarneros v. Denver Green Party (1:19-cv-00139) District Court, D. Colorado
    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14809371/guarneros-v-denver-green-party/

    Apparently it's about:
    https://denvergreenparty.org/2018/10/21/denver-green-party-recommendations-for-the-2018-munic ipal-ballot-questions/

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2020 @ 9:02am

    How many of LIE bowitz's supporters posting here come from the same IP Address?

    i.e. they're all him posting anonymously cause he's so butthurt.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Aug 2020 @ 6:46am

      Re:

      "How many of LIE bowitz's supporters posting here come from the same IP Address?"

      All of them, I'm guessing. We saw something similar when Prenda was going down and a one-man-army of sock puppets leaped to Hansmeiers and Steele's defense, trying to spam away the presented malfeasance with hundreds of little love letters to their honor.

      I think that was one of the lower notes of Baghdad Bob's career, frankly - and that's saying something...

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

  • icon
    Federico (profile), 21 Aug 2020 @ 9:09am

    Getty victory being appealed

    I had missed this was appealed a few months ago:

    CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: (30 in 1:17-cv-05832-AKH) Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Getty Images (US), Inc. against Action Sports Photography, Inc., Tiyu (Beijing) Culture Media Co. Ltd., Zuma Press, Inc., Andrew Dieb, Anthony Barham, Charles Baus, Christopher Szagola, Duncan Williams, John Middlebrook, John Pyle, Louis Lopez, Manny Flores, Robert Backman. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order and Opinion dated July 1, 2019, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment is denied; Judgment is entered for Defendant, with costs to be taxed by the Clerk; accordingly, the case is closed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:16-cv-06110-AKH, 1:17-cv-05832-AKH(dt) (Main Document 269 replaced on 7/8/2019) (dt). (Entered: 07/03/2019)

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524132/zuma-press-inc-v-getty-images-us-inc/?page =2

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


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)

Close

Add A Reply

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

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

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.