Prenda Cornholers Serve Defendant At The Last Moment – 1:12-cv-00808 (Mr. Glover & 448 Does)

As most of us are getting ready for Thanksgiving and all the crazy things it brings, I wanted to give an update to a case I previously reported on (1:12-cv-00808).  Prior to this I wish that give my thanks to all the people out there who have given what they can in our efforts to take down the Copyright Troll business model.  Does, Pro Se Defendants, Defense Attorneys, News Reporters, and anyone else who has helped in any fashion.  I hope your “Turkey Day” turns out great.  As for the Trolls and the content owners, I know your pay-back will come in time.  You are on a losing side that rationalizes greed under the guise of “Stopping Piracy” or “Getting Back What Is Yours.”  Your time is coming.  Karma baby.

As far as this case goes, it is one of the many Prenda sub-contracted cases that smells as bad as the rest.  It is one of the Prenda cases where they decided to try the route of listing one John Doe and then the remaining defendants were “joint tortfeasors.”  In this case, there are 448 of the joint tortfeasors.  They claim the main John Doe is the “serial Infringer” and that he and the other 448 defendants are “jointly and severally liable”  for the infringement (keep that point in mind).

On 12 Oct 12, the IN court issued a show cause order on why the case shouldn’t be closed for failure to serve the defendant in accordance with FRCP 4 (m).  Plaintiff had until 1 Nov 12, to respond to this order.  And true to Prenda form, they waited till the last moment to respond to the order.   ShowCauseResponse_00808(IN)

In order to avoid wasting judicial resources, Plaintiff attempted to reach a mutually beneficial settlement with the Defendant before naming and serving him in this action. While Plaintiff understands that settlement is greatly preferred, settlement does not seem realistic at this time. Plaintiff intends to name and serve the Defendant.

Reading it is the same Prenda garbage, heavy on the amount of pages and light on actual content.  Prenda tells the judge that they only recently found out the identity of the John Doe and they requested three additional weeks to name/serve the defendant, as well as amend the complaint.  They claim they have been in communication with the defendant and he is likely to waive service. 

On 6 Nov 12, the court responds to Plaintiff and tell them that it hasn’t shown good cause.   CourtResponse_00808(IN)    Judge Debra McVicker Lynch -

Having reviewed the information provided in this response, the court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for failure to serve the complaint within the time provided by rule.  The only information provided is that this court granted the plaintiff in June 2012 the right to obtain identifying information from the ISP; the plaintiff has avoided disclosure of how long it has had that information. The court will exercise its discretion to permit the plaintiff some additional time to effect service. If proof of service is not filed by November 16, 2012, the magistrate judge will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice.  {my emphasis}

Seeing this gave me a good laugh, but they were given some time to serve.  True to Prenda form, they wait until the absolute last moment to actually serve Mr. Gerald Glover at 2:10 PM, 16 Nov 12.   GloverServed_00808(IN)    They have also filed an amended complaint naming Mr. Glover as the main defendant.   FAC_Glover_00808(IN)  ExhA_IPlist_00808(IN)  Docket_19Nov12_00808(IN)

So what now for Mr. Glover and the other Does?

As you can see in the docket, there is no information showing how many of the joint tortfeasors have already settled with the Troll.  I would assume some people have settled and Prenda is keeping the specifics a secret. 

As Mr. Glover did not waive service of the summons, the settlement negations are not going as well as they hoped for (if in fact they ever did).  Mr. Glover has 21 days from service to file an answer to the complaint.  If he doesn’t, Prenda will likely motion for a default judgment in their favor.  As I previously pointed out, both complaints have everyone jointly and severally liable for this infringement activity.  This means that for this single claim of copyright infringement, all 449 defendants share in the judgment against them. 

Example: Mr. Glover defaults and the court declares him liable for $20,000 statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.  These damages are for everyone involved – all 449 defendants!  It now becomes Mr. Glover’s responsibility (Not Plaintiff or Troll) to go after the other 448 defendants to force them pay their share.  Now I don’t think Prenda would stop harassing the remaining non-settling Does after a default.  I’m sure they would threaten further law suits, but actually filing cases on these personnel would be extremely stupid.  Another interesting point to mention is that all those people who settled with Plaintiff could be drawn back into this case if Mr. Glover fights and loses OR defaults.  Again as everyone is in this together (per Plaintiff’s complaints), the number of settlement and the total amount obtained is relevant – case law supports this.  Exposes a dirty little secret on how much money they have recovered. 

Mr. Glover, please contact an experience IP attorney and do not default on this.  For all the remaining Does who have been getting the new Prenda settlement letters (Post on this), I would suggest holding out to see what happens with the case against Mr. Glover.  Let’s do the math – worst case – Mr. Glover is assessed $150K in statutory damages – 449 defendants (Joint Tortfeasors).  $150,000 / 449 = $334.08 (approx.).  For $20K – $20,000 / 449 = $44.55 (approx.).  ;)  No reason to settle at this point if you are a Doe.  Now the amount could be more because of costs and attorney fees, but it isn’t going to be a huge jump.

DieTrollDie :) 

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Prenda Cornholers Serve Defendant At The Last Moment – 1:12-cv-00808 (Mr. Glover & 448 Does)

  1. Security Lawyer says:

    All, I can say that here in Colorado, plaintiff Patrick Collins represented by attorney Kotzker, dismissed their case against 31 Does. But, despite making this motion to dismiss without prejudice, the plaintiffs do not tell the Does this has occurred and continue to try and negotiate a settlement. It seems their attempt to learn the identities of the Does was flawed and the ISP should have never released the information. The ISP may have even violated federal law in doing so, but this in part depends on the terms of service.

    • In colorado says:

      Was that all colorado cases, I got a letter from Anderson and associates In Virginia telling me I had a chance to settle and didn’t. They said the settlement was $3,500, and if I got a lawyer that it would go up. Who do I get ahold of to find out if I need a lawyer or not. Thanks

  2. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    I hope Mr. Glover doesn’t default and decides to fight. Just another nail in the Prenda coffin should he win. DTD, you brought up a good point…. What would stop Prenda from filing suits against the other Does if they happened to get a default? I wouldn’t put it past them. I can’t wait for the day that Prenda or any other Troll is forced to show how much money they had received in settlements before they filed a named case. However, I would not be surprised at all if they lie to cover their ass. You could probably count on it.

  3. Doe says:

    Looks like he defaulted. New filing in the case.

  4. Pingback: Prenda Cornholers Motion For Default Judgement Of Defendant – 1:12-cv-00808 (CP Productions Inc., v. Gerald Glover) | DieTrollDie

  5. Pingback: Maximum Default Judgement For CP Productions Inc. v. Glover, 1:12-cv-00808 (IN) | DieTrollDie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s