Hot In Arizona – Update To AF Holdings LLC., v. David Harris, 2:12-cv-02144

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 70.176.202.3 (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? 

DieTrollDie :)

About John Doe (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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Hot In Arizona – Update To AF Holdings LLC., v. David Harris, 2:12-cv-02144

  1. Dohtidoe says:

    “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” …I seriously spit my lunch all over my keyboard. It may not be the proper decorum, but it’s sure funny as hell. Hope the judge has a sense of humor as well :)

  2. Pingback: An explosive mixture of emotions and reason — the future that copyright trolls will deal with « Fight Copyright Trolls

  3. sausages says:

    Mr. Harris has gigantic balls, good for him.. That was a really funny response. I still wish he was a bit more respectful as to not get him in trouble. Being a dick is fun sometimes but sometimes its necessary to reign it in a bit to prove a point.

    • sausages says:

      Poking at the plaintiff is one thing but saying crap like this

      If your honor grants Plaintiff’s motion and signs the proposedorder you will be a laughing stock compliments of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has the audacityto accuse me of not respecting this court.

      is probably against his best interest.

      • Ya . . . you are probably right. He is not just the plaintiff’s attorney of record tho. He is part of an enterprise that tried extorting money from me. I don’t know a lot about the law, but I know this case should not exist. Things that I say don’t always come out right, but that was meant as a friendly warning to the judge and of course a hell dig to the Troll!

      • Sausages says:

        Hey, I am rooting for you.. don’t think I’m not. It’s a crap deal they named you and I’d be pissed too, but I’d be at least respectful to the judge :P

        Seriously, best of luck.

      • Dohtidoe says:

        Oh, after reading that masterpiece I am rooting for you harder than I’ve rooted for anyone in these things. I do think a word of warning is fair though–while disrespecting your opponent is one thing (and definitely deserved) I think the point about treading lightly when it comes to the court and the judge is a good one. Keep it up, but walk a fine line :)

  4. The Tod says:

    I get so much joy from this case!

  5. that anonymous coward says:

    I still like him.
    I forgive him his rough edges, simply because this is a very quick education for the Judge and other courts for how this affects regular people.
    The claims are bogus, the whining is stupid, and I will do what the court orders when I am damn well good and ready before the deadline.
    This is an average joe, who seems really enlightened and really cranky at this sorry excuse for a case to be moving forward.
    Lawyers when they discuss things worry about decorum etc etc… this is someone dragged into court from his real life, accused of horrible things, and he is getting more and more pissed the more he discovers about how this case should never have gotten this far and the liar across the courtroom is whining about him being difficult… well DUH.
    He is on a very fine line, but I don’t think he’s fallen off yet…
    One is left to wonder what sort of string a expletives you can craft using words suitable for court.

  6. Pingback: Motion For Security Bond In AF Holdings LLC., v. David Harris, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) | 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