6 Aug 14 – Update
This does not surprise me, but Troll Nicoletti shut down this case and never even reached the Discovery Phase for ANY Doe. On 4 Aug 14, he filed the dismissal letter for all remaining Does. On 5 Aug 14, The court issued the order that all remaining Does were dismissed without prejudice. Doc_16_DismissWOP_00073(MI) Doc_17_DismissOrder_00073(MI) As the Trolls often do not tell the court the final numbers of settlements reached, I don’t know how many Does paid.
This just goes to show you that for this case, it was probably a better option to NOT sign the Waiver of Service form and just wait for the Troll to shut the case down. Now of course Troll/Plaintiff could refile against the non-settling Does, but that is unlikely IMO.
I don’t know if Defendant Andersen paid a settlement (he signed the WOS), but as there was no motion for a default judgement against him, there is a good chance he did. The Troll could have simply walked away without pushing the default – I wonder.
Another crappy BT Copyright Troll cases is over, but there are so many others still on the dockets.
25 Jul 14 – Update
Since last month, we have seen a couple of updates to this case (archive docket).
- Voluntary Dismissal of Party – Doc_14_Doe22_Dismissed_00073(MI)
- Order (concerning Mrs. Seglund) – Doc_15_Order_00073(MI)
The voluntary dismissal of Doe #22 with prejudice is most likely the result of a settlement. In the Order, the judge informs Mrs. Seglund that he is giving her 60 additional days (16 Sep 14) to file her answer to the complaint. He also notes the confusion that this layperson has with the Waiver of Service (WOS) she signed and what it actually means. I truly hope Mrs. Seglund has the strength to keep this up, but it may be hard for an older lady on social security to be able to do this. Mrs. Seglund is the poster-child of a typical target of a BT Copyright Troll – someone who is disadvantaged and will likely settle if enough pressure is applied.
Troll Paul J. Nicoletti, if you do
force accept a settlement from her you are a low douchebag bottom feeding attorney (My opinion); actions like this is what gives attorneys a negative reputation. You can easily speak to Mrs. Seglund and try to find out who the real offender is and where the computer is located. At least attorney Maureen C. VanderMay (Elf-Mann LLC) had the good sense and ethics to eventually back out of these cases.
Now we also have Defendant Andersen who signed the WOS and had until 18 Jul 14, to file his answer. As of today, I haven’t seen his answer on the docket. I expect that a motion for a default judgement against Mr. Andersen will happen sometime in the future.
For the remaining people in this case, I suggest you don’t give into the fear that the Troll radiates. We have not seen any of these Does actually served and I doubt this will happen. Troll/Plaintiff is especially concerned with all the information that is being exposed on IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and the “Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC).
26 Jun 14 – Update
Well it seems like Mrs. Seglund was not happy finding out the Waiver of Service form she signed required her to provide an answer to the court NLT 18 Jul 14. Doc_13_00073(MI) She apparently even wrote Troll Nicoletti a letter and explained that the computer that was connected to her internet connection was not hers (was no longer in her residence), and she didn’t know who did this. Of course Troll Nicoletti did not attach this letter to the Waiver of Service form she signed. Why bother to inform the court that a an older lady on social security denied being the infringer??? Keep up the good work Troll Nicoletti.
Mrs. Seglund, I hope the court accepts your letter as an “answer” (denial) and makes the Troll move forward. If not, please use the answer template I have provided and file it with the court. I expect Troll/Plaintiff will not like to see a case against a social security recipient, so I would expect a motion to dismiss from them. Please do not accept anything but a full dismissal – Do NOT paying them any money OR agree to find out who did this. They can conduct their own investigation.
So I was looking at some of the various cases by the Copyright Trolls and this one caught my eye for a couple of reasons. Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073, Western District of Michigan, opened on 21 Jan 14. The Troll is the wonderful Paul J. Nicoletti, who is working for Nicolas Chartier at Voltage Pictures. Archive Docket. Docket_19Jun14_00073(MI) Complaint_00073(MI) Complaint_IPs_00073(MI)
On first look, the cases appears to be just another Mass-Doe copyright infringement case for a crappy movie (my opinion). The first thing that caught my eye was the declaration of Daniel Macek, supporting early discovery – ISP subscriber information. Decl_Daniel_Macek_00073(MI) If you remember, he works for IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and his name (Daniel Macek) was found in the “Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC) briefing. With all the Trouble the Trolls (Malibu Media, Elf-Man, & Voltage Pictures) are facing over the German firm/investigators, this little fact means this Troll/Plaintiff is not going to take this case to trial – they will not dare to expose the inner workings of this operation for fear of their demise.
The second thing that caught my eye was that two of the defendants signed a Waiver of Service of Summons form (WOS) and Troll Nicoletti filed them with the court on 13 and 18 Jun 14. Doc_11_WOS_00073(MI) Doc_12_WOS_00073(MI) The court has set 18 Jul 14, as the deadline for both of these Defendants to file answers.
Now some may believe I’m prejudice against the Trolls, but something just felt wrong with this. It is my belief that the Trolls are trying to trick the Does into signing the WOS and then they will try to pressure the Doe to settle after the date to file an answer has passed. If a Defendant doesn’t then settle, they will simply move for a default judgement. I believe most people who read the WOS will only see the fact that if they don’t sign it, they could have to pay the fee for be served by a process-server. They do not see the part that requires them to file an answer with the court within 60 days of signing the WOS. What is also troubling to me is one of the Defendants indicated she doesn’t have an email address. This usually means it is a person that is computer illiterate (no offense) and is unlikely to have used BitTorrent and downloaded Plaintiff’s movie. The security of the network from an ISP subscriber such as this is also suspect – network run open, using WEP, etc. So this just seem like the Troll is up to no good. Care to comment Troll Nicoletti??? This could get embarrassing.
So to possibly help these two Does (and others), I have a basic denial answer template for this Countryman Nevada case. For the other 28 Does, there is no need to use this “Answer” at this time – that is unless you are actually served with a summons/complaint OR you sign the WOS. I personally would not sign the WOS – make them serve you first. As 99.99 of these cases have never seen final judgement (or people being named/served), the possibility of having to pay for service is remote at best.
If you have to file an answer, don’t just slap your name on it and file it with the court. Please use the template as a starting point and make it fit your situation. I will remind everyone that providing a false statement is a serious matter and can get you in trouble – don’t do it.