Colorado K-Beech Case (Virgins 4), 1:11-cv-01653-CMA -MJW (Jason Kotzker)

Well I looked up a CO case concerning K-Beech and the file “Virgins 4.”  This is the same K-Beech file that has a 78 John Doe case in PA.  There are probably more cases in other States with the same K-Beech file.  K_Beech_CO_Vir4_Show_Cause_Dism  Case# 1:11-cv-01653-CMA -MJW

The interesting thing I noted is that three John Does’ (# 7, 14, & 15) file Motions to Quash or Modify Subpoena.  On 2 Sep 11, Kotzker dismissed all three of the John Does without prejudice.  The Does used the Motion templates!!!!!  🙂

On 7 Sep 11, the Judge (Michael J. Watanabe) issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and ORDER RESETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE.  In the order, the judge noted that since it was filed, NO defendants have been served within 120 days of the complaint filing.  Kotzker has to show good cause as to why the case should not be dismissed. 

ORDERED plaintiff shall forthwith serve the defendants and file returns of service for each. It is further

ORDERED that on October 31, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A-502, fifth floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failing to serve the defendants and failure to prosecute.

It is further ORDERED that the Rule 16 Scheduling/Planning Conference is reset to October 31, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A-502, fifth floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294. The parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order and Confidential Settlement Statements on or before
October 26, 2011.

Well this looks hopeful for our Colorado brothers and sisters.  The judge in this case appears to not want to mess around with the Trolls.  The Troll did file a response trying to justify his case – Plaintiffs_Reason_for_Mass_case

Another note:  It appears that two John Does (# 18 & 21) settled with Kotzker, as they were dismissed with prejudice on 12 Sep 11.  😦

UPDATE – It appears Doe #8 settled with the Troll and was dismissed with prejudice on 27 Sep 11.

Keep it up! 

DieTrollDie  🙂

——————————————————————–

Here is the LinkedIn page for Jason Kotzker – http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-kotzker/4/391/678

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 bitTorrent, copyright, K-Beech, Kotzker Law Group, Motion to dismis, p2p, piracy, Virgins 4 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Colorado K-Beech Case (Virgins 4), 1:11-cv-01653-CMA -MJW (Jason Kotzker)

  1. Jaba says:

    While those Does were dismissed, suits were filed against them individually.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Ok. I did see three separate cases, but I hadn’t compare the IP addresses. Thanks. So much for the claim that all the JDs acted in concert and are jointly liable. If you have any details, please email me.

      DieTrolldieDie. 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Well I finally reviewed the 3 separate CO K-Beech cases and YES they are for the JDs (# 7, 14, &15) who were on the initial list of 35 IP addresses.

      So why dismiss and then open new separate cases on each JD? I can guess that it kills the Motions for this case. The Does now need to resubmit the motions (N=Use the new case #) to the court, Jason Kotzker, and send a copy to the ISP. You will need to edit the motions and be sure to cite the previous case and that plaintiff severed the case after you filed the motion. I would mention that in the intial case Plaintiff claimed that all the Does were acting in concert to download/share the file. Were they lying about being “Jointly and Severally Liable?” How come they are all of a sudden they are separated? Because Plaintiff is going after the Does who fight and don’t pay up (like JDs# 18 & 21).

      Attention other Does in this case – this move by Kotzker may help you. If Kotzker claims there is no information to show these IP addresses downloaded/shared with the other IP addresses in this case, there is a great chance the other IP addresses are in the same situation. If Kotzker has to file separate cases, it costs him $350.00 each time and the associated paperwork and time.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I forgot to mention that for the 3 Does in the separate cases. The clock is ticking for dismissal based on not serving you/naming you in the case – 120 days to serve. 120 days from 8 Sep 11 is 6 Jan 2012. I would have a Motion to Dismiss ready to go. Yes he can refile, but it costs him more money. 🙂

  2. John Doe says:

    I am a lawschool student/doe. The complaints continue to plead contributory infringement and the dockets indicate they have filed memoranda regarding joinder which have yet to be ruled upon. I talked to my torts professor and am worried that the defendants in the voluntarily dismissed and refiled cases will face substantially increased settlement demands. I am buying my time before filing anything and am anxious to see what happens next . . . .

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Drop me an email with the case details. I will reply directly.

    DieTrollDie. 🙂

  4. DieTrollDie says:

    UPDATE – It appears Doe #8 settled with the Troll and was dismissed with prejudice on 27 Sep 11.

  5. Doe in CO says:

    What is the latest on this case? I’m a Doe in Colorado (11-cv01653) and I’ve had a settlement offer of $3400. What should I be doing? I do not want to be named.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I took a quick look at the case in PACER and it shows terminated. What that means is the Troll decided to press on with trying to contact all the Does’ he obtained subscriber information on. As you have received a settlement letter (any calls?), the Troll will claim he will name you in a new case unless you settle. If possible, please email me a copy of the settlement letter, as well as any emails you may have received. I will redact your personal info and post it if you agree. What to do? Sorry but you have to decide what is best for you. The Troll will make it all seem gloom and doom unless you settle with him. If you haven’t take a read here and at Fightcopyrighttrolls.com for the history of the Troll actually taking anyone to trial – very slight chance. They don’t want a legal battle they may lose. Their operation is a money-making one, not an effort to protect copyright owners. They could name you in a new case, either by John Doe # or real name in Denver. Either way they then have 120 days to serve you a summons or the case can be dismissed (by your request or the judge can do it). Have you contacted any of the lawyers listed under the EFF Web site? https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense They may have some additional information on this case, as well as the activity of the CO Troll.

      CO Lawyers
      # John A. Arsenault john.arsenault@frontrangelegalservices.com
      # David Kerr dkerr@idea-asset.com
      # Christina Saunders christina@nouveaulaw.com

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