Just wanted to get this out to the people who haven’t seen it yet. Thank you to houstonlawy3r for posting this information.
Bottom Line: Case 1:11-cv-01274, AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1140, has been voluntarily dismissed by the Troll (Prenda Law). The judge in the case gave Plaintiff until 9 Mar 12, to start naming/serving Does or to dismiss the case. As expected, Prenda dismissed the case. They still have the Does’ personal information, so I’m sure they will still keep threatening them unless they settle. Here is houstonlawy3r’s view of what Prenda really meant when they told the court they were dismissing the case.
In other words, “Court, we are dismissing the case so that you do not need to waste your time looking over us watching what we are doing. We would prefer not to have you watch us anyway because you will force us to do something we don’t want to do (e.g., “name” defendants), which would make our extortion scheme much more costly to us and thus we wouldn’t be able to sustain our operation if we had to actually go after defendants. So thanks to you, since we now have all the names we need from the ISPs of the putative Doe Defendants, we will continue to call and harass those who haven’t settled without having you worry about what we are doing.”
In short, I would have liked to see the judge issue an order indicating that since they have dismissed the case, they are no longer permitted to use the names they acquired from the subpoenas and collect settlements from putative defendants. The legal system is not a tool to discover private information about internet subscribers only to dismiss the case and continue their extortion scheme offline.
For this reason, I suspect that you understand why I am not so happy with this case dismissal. Getting your names only to dismiss the action was simply part of their plan all along.
What??? Prenda doesn’t really name Does??? Say it isn’t so. Don’t believe me??? Take it straight from the mouth of the Troll – http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/03/01/prenda-law-makes-the-classified-number-of-actually-served-defendants-public/ That number of named/served defendants is ZERO.