Motion to Sever/Quash, Patrick Collins v. Does 1-18 (PA), 2:11-cv-07252-MSG

Here is a quick post of a Motion to Sever/Quash from Doe 13 (represented), on Patrick Collins v. Does 1-18, case 2:11-cv-07252-MSG, Eastern District of PA.  Well written and I would use this as a basis for any other Motion. I will make some comments later.  Tell me what you think of it.

Doe13 MTQ_-07252(PA)

DieTrollDie 🙂

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 -
This entry was posted in Motion to Quash and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Motion to Sever/Quash, Patrick Collins v. Does 1-18 (PA), 2:11-cv-07252-MSG

  1. Raul says:

    I think it kicks ass and I wish these kind of litigation attorney generated resources were available back in the colonial age when I hurriedly prepared my MTQ.

  2. Raul says:

    From my perspective of less than one year into this world it seems as if the Does who started with slingshots are now possessed with Uzis in terms of the legal arguments and judicial determinations that have developed in that short time. I can’t wait to see where we are another year’s time (I think that massive class action lawsuits and federal investigations are quite possible given the recent developments in FL and elsewhere).

  3. Anonymous says:

    I agree. Last year when I got my subpoena notification, I found SJD’s site within minutes and knew within an hour what to expect and had decided there would be no settlement. However, that was before the train wreck in Northern California and before there had been anything proactive from Does besides (mostly pro se) MTQs. Even a couple months ago when Prenda filed their batch of “individual” suits I still had some anxiety about losing the lottery and being pursued further.

    Now, with all the action in the Yuen countersuits, Does with attorneys filing MTQs and motions to dismiss and sever, and the revelation about Prenda never serving a defendant, I wake up every day excited to watch these douchbags go down in flames. If they make the mistake of trying to pursue me further I know exactly who to call, my IP turned up in one of the cases where they had no copyright registration, so sometimes I hope they do make the mistake of trying to mess with me because it would be fun to see my name alongside Wong and Abrahams.

    • Raul says:

      As Hulk Hogan would say “Amen, Brother”. If you get a chance please read John Grisham’s latest novel, “The Litigators”, to get a sense of the buffoonery that is going on here. Hi John!

  4. Doe24 says:

    To defeat those judges who dismiss MTQs based on the ground that the Doe is not yet a party, and lacks standing to file such a motion, cite FRCP 24 (

    (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
    (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

    (b) Permissive Intervention.
    (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
    (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

    (3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.

    (c) Notice and Pleading Required. A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.

  5. Raul says:

    So the Does should be filing omnibus motions to intervene, quash, sever and, in the alternative, for a protective order?

  6. that anonymous coward says:

    This truly is a thing of beauty.
    It offers several of the arguments we’ve seen before in these cases, with varying success, and the new fun twist – Even if you don’t quash, a protective order to prevent the main tool of the trolls fear of exposure.
    I wonder if Does knew they could not be publicly shamed before a real case, that the odds of a real case are roughly 0% would they even entertain listening to these extortionists.

    It was nice to see an outright attack on the strength of the IP harvesting, I wish they had cited the University papers where they framed a network attached laser printer on multiple occasions several years apart. Something else fun would be to finally show proof that a majority of the “different” IP harvesters are all run by the same outfit, using different names to insulate their cases collapsing should a Judge ever learn how inaccurate they can be.

    Something to keep in mind in unrelated news that might have a direct effect depending on the final ruling…
    Basically the Government is arguing that data you voluntarily hand over to a 3rd party voids your right to privacy of that data. The problem is I’ve never seen a wireless provider offering an opt out of the data being gathered, which means the only way to avoid this data collection is to not have wireless. This is the joy of living in a society on its way to being Orwellian, there were provisions in several bills that were defeated that would hand these trolls everything on a silver platter with data about you having to be retained for much longer periods.

    I look forward to more coverage of this motions progress.
    I remain…

  7. Raul says:

    Just posted this at SJD’s site but also wanted to get the word out here as well:

    Mr. Cashman earlier reported about Weretroll Mike Meier’s bit of bad luck in the Southern District of New York on 3-2-11 . Well it looks like his bad luck streak in the Southern District of New York is continuing Perhaps it is time for him to pack his carpet bag and move to friendlier turf because The Southern District of New York is shaping up to be hostile troll territory.

  8. Another interested observer. says:

    Check out the comments on Mr. Cashman’s website. Class action lawsuit against one of the Trolls is being allowed to proceed. Neat stuff. Thanks to all for the great info. I will contribute whenever I think I have something worth sharing.

  9. Raul says:

    DTD-kudos on your article at Great job laying out the landscape and the peculiarities of the troll’s motives and “evidence”.

  10. Raul says:

    DTD-I know you are busy but the MTQ’s generated by lawyers are coming in fast and furious and while this one is not of the same caliber as those that are coming out of FLA, some poignant/potent arguments are made

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks. I willl take a look and get it up on the page.

      DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. This is a very nicely written MTQ/S/D. I like how the attorney lays out the background in a simple to understand way. This is meant not only for the court, but for the man in the street to read and go, “These trolls are screwing over people over BS claims and the US tax payer is also taking it in the shorts!” Thank again Raul!

      DTD 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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