Thanks Raul for keeping up on things and passing along the interesting bits to post.
The attached Motion to Quash/Sever/Dismiss is for Digital Sins, Inc., v. Does 1-245, Case 1:11-cv-08170, filed in the Southern District of New York. Doe 148 filed this motion via his Attorney, Yasha Heidari, Heidari Power Law Group LLC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Very nicely written MTQ/S/D. I will also add it to the Motion page for those looking for examples/templates.
I really like the Background section that clearly informs the court (and others) what a scam these types of law suits are. The motion argues three main points:
- PLAINTIFF FAILS TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING ALLEGING
PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DOE DEFENDANTS
- PLAINTIFF HAS IMPROPERLY JOINED 245 INDIVIDUALS FOR
DISTINCTLY SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS AND OCCURRENCE
- THE SUBPOENA MUST BE QUASHED, OR AT A MINIMUM, A
PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE ISSUED
I really like this paragraph of the motion. “Plaintiff’s so called technical specialist’s methods, sweeping allegations, and hyperbolic liberties it takes with reaching accusatory conclusions, should be noted and called into question.” As well as this bit – “Also noteworthy is the fact that the supposed Affidavit by Jon Nicolini cannot be found on the docket.” I don’t doubt the Troll has some document, it is just funny that they didn’t provide it. It is sad that the court didn’t notice the missing claimed document, as it is central to getting the subpoena granted.
In the instant action, Plaintiff’s crucial allegation that defendants are all part of the same “swarm” is unsupported and Plaintiff proffers a sample of what a swarm is supposed to be like, instead of offering evidence of the alleged actual swarm in this case. In fact, all of Plaintiff’s so called technical specialist’s methods, sweeping allegations, and hyperbolic liberties it takes with reaching accusatory conclusions, should be noted and called into question. Also noteworthy is the fact that the supposed Affidavit by Jon Nicolini cannot be found on the docket. Nonetheless, the allegation that defendants are part of the same “swarm” for any alleged file sharing, which would confer joinder, has been expressly rejected by Courts throughout the country as a basis of conferring joinder.
Well enjoy the read. I did!