Things are heating up in the Arizona case of David Harris v. AF Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-02144. Since I last posted an update to this case, Plaintiff filed an answer to Mr. Harris’ counterclaim on 21 Nov 12. Pla AnswerCounterClaim_02144(AZ) Nothing shocking, just going through the motions of denying the counterclaims and praying for relief from the court. On 21 Nov 12, the judge reconsider and granted Mr. Harris’ request to be able file case documents electronically via CM/ECF (21 Nov 12). Harris Granted CMECF_02144(AZ) The judge also order both parties to meet no later than 21 days prior to a 18 Jan 13, Case Management Conference (CMC). CMC Order_02144(AZ) The parties will have to meet and confer prior to Christmas and produce a joint case management report. Take a look at this order and tell me the judge doesn’t have a good idea of what the Trolls are up to and how flimsy their operation is. The order requires the report contain some interesting information such as:
- Parties who attended the meeting and assisted in developing the CMC report. (I wonder if John Steele’s name will be there).
- Parties in the case, including any parent corporations or entities. (Who is behind the shell of AF Holding LLC???)
- The jurisdiction basis for the case, as well as the details on where AF Holdings LLC is incorpoerated. The parties are reminded that (1) a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business and (2) partnerships and limited liability companies are citizens of every state in which one of their members or partners resides… The parties are further reminded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the use of fictitious parties and that the naming of a “John Doe” or “ABC Corporation” party “casts no magical spell on a complaint otherwise lacking in diversity jurisdiction.” (my emphasis)
- Whether any party expects to add additional parties to the case or otherwise to amend or supplement pleadings. I would suggest that Mr. Harris make the motion to rejoin ALL the defendant from the original DC, as well as the other 7 AZ defendants.
- Contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be decided by these motions.
- The status of related cases pending before other courts or other judges of this Court. (Will Prenda disclose all the cases around the US using this swarm hash as a basis for their law suits???)
- Discovery of electronically stored information. (Be careful Prenda, this goes both ways)
There is much more, but I will let you enjoy the read. What I found interesting is this portion of the order (bolded by the court).
Thus, once the dates have been set in the Case Management Order the Court will not vary them in the absence of good cause, even should the parties stipulate to do so. The Court does not consider settlement talks or the scheduling of mediations to constitute good cause for an extension.
I read that to mean that the judge knows that Prenda likes to blame case delays on “settlement negotiations.”
On 21 Nov 12, Troll Goodhue emailed Mr. Harris and asked to meet and confer with him during the week of 17 Dec 12 (Exhibit A in Pla Motion show cause_02144(AZ)) On 22 Nov 12, Mr. Harris replied to his email and flatly refused to meet with during that time period (Exhibit B in the above motion). Mr. Harris did state that if the meet and confer has to take place, it will be at the last possible moment.
Troll Goodhue was not impressed with Mr. Harris’ response and on 26 Nov 12, fired off a motion to show cause why Mr. Harris should not be held in contempt of the court order (see above). In this motion, Troll Goodhue whines that Mr. Harris insulted him and the court and should be sanctioned. He even has the gall to tell the judge that,
Federal courts have the inherent power to punish persons who abuse the judicial process.
Isn’t like the “Pot calling the kettle black?” Troll Goodhue, do you understand anything of these type of cases or the history of Steele/Hansmeier & Prenda Law???
Troll Goodhue even makes the ridiculous request that Mr. Harris’ answer and counterclaim be dismissed. There is no basis for this and it says volumes to your fear of litigating this to the end.
On 28 Nov 12, Mr. Harris responded to Troll Goodhue’s motion. Harris ResponseMSC_02144(AZ)
Plaintiff’s motion wants the defendant to “show cause as to why he has violated this Court’s Rule 16 Order of November 21, 2012″ [id at doc 19 page 1 lines 19 and 20] the Plaintiff asserts defendant did not violate the Rule 16 order as none of the deadlines have passed [id at doc 19 page 2 lines 2-7] Plaintiff quotes my reply to him “Mr. Goodhue, I respect your position, but your proposal is thoroughly rejected. If by some crazy mishaps this conference has to take place, it will be at latest possible date. I believe in good faith that your case will be disposed of shortly.” [id at doc 19 page 3 line 3-5]. I do not want to meet or confer with the Plaintiff whatsoever, but I will if I have to. Plaintiff may not like it, but I have that right and it does not violate any rule or order of this court and the little cry baby needs to grow some skin, if he doesn’t like it, then he should not have brought me here for the reasons he did, as I will show this court the Plaintiff has misrepresented this case to the court over and over.
Well I will say it is always fun to read Mr. Harris’ responses. :) Not exactly how I would have done it, but I’m not the one fighting this in the court.
Mr. Harris goes on to inform the court that AF Holdings LLC, does not have the prima facie evidence to justify this case in the first place.
- Plaintiff did not hold the copyright right of the movie in question until 9 days after the alleged infringement from public IP address 126.96.36.199 (3 Jun 12 & 12 Jun 12).
- Plaintiff failed to make the logical connection that Mr. Harris is the true infringer just because he is the ISP subscriber associated to that public IP address on 3 Jun 12.
- Plaintiff previously told the DC District court (In AF Holdings v. Does 1-1140, case # 11-01274) that jurisdiction was proper in that location.
Mr. Harris closes the response by telling the court that he is really easy to get along with and if Plaintiff wants, he is willing to stipulate to striking his answer and counterclaim against Plaintiff. (Interesting)
Now I don’t think Mr. Harris will be sanctioned, but most likely the court will counsel both sides that he is not going to stand for such drama and to get on with it. This may not be the PA Bellwether case, but this judge appears to want it on a fast track with no BS excuses accepted. So what are you going to do Troll Goodhue??? When will Duffy and Steele show up in AZ? Will you disclose the true nature and agreement of AF Holdings LLC and its personnel? Going to take Mr. Harris up on his offer to strike his answer and counterclaim?