18 Jun 14 Update
See the end of this post for the background story on the “Bailout: The Age of Greed” case (2:13-cv-01039 (IAND)). On 17 Jun 14, the judge dismissed the case for lack of action on Plaintiffs part. Doc_10_DismissOrder_01039(IA) Doc_11_DismissJudgement_01039(IA) Docket_18Jun14_01039(IA)
So for this Troll/Plaintiff, the case was a complete bust.
- $400 case filing fee – Started off with 28 Does
- Minimal time spent on this case
- Troll had to dismiss Does 18-28 because I pointed out two different SHA-1 hash files
- Settlements loss – Lets estimate 14 Does settle for $3,500.00 – Total $49,000.00
As these A$$clowns never sought early discovery, the ISPs were never notified (I assume) and the subscriber records are likely long gone.
Some days are just better than others.
4 Jun 14 Update
For the next week I will be on vacation, so there is likely to be a slow down in production and answering posts/questions. Still, feel free to email and comment; If I don’t get to them right away, I’m sure others will do so. Also, don’t forget that you can catch me on Twitter (@DieTrollDie). This last week has been interesting and I can only hope/imagine what is in store for the Trolls.
It certainly appears that Iowa Copyright Troll attorneys Jay Hamilton and Alexander Johnson are not having the best of luck. I’m sure they have made some money by scaring some people into paying a settlement for the garbage movie “The Company You Keep” (my opinion). In my last post on these cases (2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020), the court ordered a 29 May 14, joint hearing in response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants (in both cases) to work on a joint scheduling and discovery plan that the court required. Not that the Troll/Plaintiff actually wanted to go ahead with discovery. It is my belief the Trolls were simply trying to force settlements or possibly get set-up for a default judgement.
From what I was able to determine, Mr. Baltramea did contact the court and Troll Hamilton prior to the 29 May 14, hearing. The Troll attempted to get Mr. Beltramea to pay a settlement and failed. Not surprising, the Troll then offered Mr. Beltramea a dismissal – prior to the hearing. Mr. Beltramea accepted the dismissal and ended this case. I bet the Troll didn’t want to have to answer any uncomfortable questions from the court. StipDismiss_Doc41_01019(IA)
Immediately following the filing of the dismissal, the court cancelled the hearing and closed the case. Doc42_01019(IA) It is sad that the court on its own didn’t order Troll/Plaintiff to show cause why it shouldn’t be sanctioned for filing a frivolous case with no reasonable evidence and no good faith. It does seem like the IA courts are not happy with the Trolls and further cases are not going to be as easy. We will see.
The same thing also happened for the three remaining defendants (Terri Eicher, Joshua Davidson, & Brady Hixson) in case 2:13-cv-01020. Troll/Plaintiff simply dismissed the remaining defendant prior to having to answer any questions by the court. Both Eicher and Hixson did not file answers and were at risk of a default judgement. But NO default judgement was requested….. Doc47_Dismiss_01020(IA) Doc45_Dismiss_01020(IA) Doc43_Dismiss_01020(IA)
Now the funny thing is that prior to filing stipulated dismissal of Mr. Davidson (agreed to by Mr. Davidson), Troll/Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of it. I warn you not to be drinking anything when you read the memo; you will likely be spit out and make a mess of the monitor. MotionDismiss_Doc44_01020(IA) Memo_Dismiss_Doc44-1_01020(IA)
This court should exercise its discretion and grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dismissal is proper because Plaintiff’s counsel in its professional judgment believes there is a significantly lower likelihood that Defendant Davidson was personally involved with the infringement and any recovery would be less than the cost of continued pursuit of Plaintiff’s claims. This conclusion was arrived upon only after Defendant Davidson filed an answer, and all attempts to contact Defendant Davidson to discuss dismissal have been fruitless. Plaintiff wishes to offer settlement and dismissal with prejudice for no fee to Defendant Davidson but has been unable to discuss this offer due to nonresponsiveness. For this reason, Plaintiff is moving this court to do that which Plaintiff is unable to do without contact from Defendant Davidson: end this litigation before more costs are incurred by both parties and judicial resources are wasted. If this court agrees with Plaintiff and dismisses the claims against Defendant Davidson with prejudice, there is no threat of litigation on this issue for Defendant. Thus, this court should dismiss Defendant Davidson from this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
So based on What the Troll has to say in the memo, if you deny the allegations, then they are of the “professional” opinion that you probably didn’t do it. Now I don’t buy this load of crap, but it is funny to read. The fact of the matter is this Troll/Plaintiff is closing down some of these cases in the IA courts.
More Stupidity in IA
Here is another case I mentioned some time ago where Voltage Pictures decided to file a case under a different Plaintiff name (“Bailout: The Age of Greed” instead of “Assault on Wall Street”) to apparently hide in plain sight. Case 2:13-cv-01039 (IAND), opened on 12 Dec 13. Not likely. Also of note was the fact that Troll/Plaintiff tried to mix two different SHA hash files in one case. When I discovered this fact I fired off a letter to the court on 26 Dec 13. Letter1_01039(IA)
The court in turn notified the Troll of my letter and then the case stalled. I wonder why……. Troll/Plaintiff has not sought early discovery of the ISP subscriber information (case has been open approx. 6 months) and finally on 19 Mar 14 (almost 3 months after I sent the letter), Troll/Plaintiff dismissed Does 18-28, but failed to mention why or because of whom. Doc_7_Dismiss_01039(IA) I feel like Rodney Dangerfield, “I can’t get no respect!”
On 28 May 14, Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles filed a notice of dismissal similar to cases 2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020. Doc_9_NoAction_01039(IA) The judge advised Plaintiff that unless some “appropriate action” happens by 11 Jun 14, the case will be dismissed. I expect we will see Troll/Plaintiff dismiss the remaining Does soon. I will be really surprised if they seek early discovery. Based on all the fall-out that is building on the “German Investigators” (IPP/ Guardaley/ Excipio), I don’t expect to see many new cases from the idiots at Voltage pictures. But as greed is a strong motivator, I may be wrong. Be sure to check out the Fightcopyrighttrolls article on the German connection – things are getting interesting.