Hello All! A nice reader passed along some information he thought I might enjoy. It deals with Case # 1:11-CV-02941-CAP, K-Beech v. Does 1-63, Law Firm: Knight Johnson, LLC (Troll Bryan M. Knight) , filed 1 Sep 11. The complaint is the standard poor looking K-Beech template (see below). Complaint_1Sep11_02941(GA) 5Dec11_SeverOrder_02941(GA)
On 15 Nov 11, Two Does filed Motions to Server and the Troll filed Responses to these Motions on 29 Nov 11. The Judge (Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.) was not too impressed with the Trolls long-winded response and stated he would not even consider Plaintiff’s memorandum, as he (Troll) exhausted his page limit in responding. 🙂
The court does mention what this Troll has been up to in this jurisdiction.
The court also notes that the plaintiff’s counsel filed three other, nearly identical cases on (essentially) the same day that are currently pending before this court, including one filed on behalf of the same plaintiff: K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-47, 11-cv-2968-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Sept. 2, 2011); Raw Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-32, 11-cv-2939-TWT (N.D. Ga. filed Sept. 1, 2011); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-35, 11-cv-2940-RWS (N.D. Ga. filed Sept. 1, 2011).
The judge went on to say this case is part of an “Outbreak of similar litigation… around the country,” where the Plaintiffs join multiple Does in a single action, based on the Does taking part in a BitTorrent swarm (AKA: Swarm Joinder Theory).
The facts here demonstrate why the swarm joinder pleading tactic is not appropriate in this action. The differing dates and times of each defendant’s alleged sharing do not allow for an inference that they were acting in concert. While the defendants may have used the same peer-to-peer system, the complaint does not allege they were sharing with each other. For example, Doe 23, who is alleged to have been in the swarm on April 15, 2011, is unlikely to have been in the swarm at the same time as Doe 20, who alleged to have been in the swarm on July 18, 2011–an almost three month span that is even longer than the six-week span in Hard Drive Productions cited above.
The judge states Plaintiff has not adequately alleged Doe defendants engaged in a common series of transactions as required by Rule 20, and joinder is not proper. He further determined that because of this and the the variety of defenses likely to be raised by Doe defendants, joinder would not result in judicial economy.
The judge granted the Motion to sever for both Doe Defendants. Doe defendants 2-63 were severed from the case and the claims against them were dismissed without prejudice. He also required that if Plaintiff wishes to refile against Does 2-63 individually, he must note that these Does are “related” to this case/action.
It seems that K-Beech and Patrick Collins cases have been taking some good hits recently. A bit of an early Christmas present for the Does in this case. Yes I know they can still be refile against. I can hear John Steele telling us how “Pyrrhic” this victory would be if it was his case. I really doubt the Troll wants to file against the Does in this jurisdiction. The Troll will have to inform the court they are “related” to this action. Any new judge is going to read this order, as well as speak with Judge Pannell.
“Some ships are designed to sink… others require our assistance.”