You are “Wong” Mr. Gibbs (Prenda Law) – Hard Drive Productions’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED – 4:12-cv-00469

9 May 12 Update

Thank you SJD.  Well the Wong v. Hard Drive Productions case (4:12-cv-00469) has been settled as of 7 May 12.  Settlement_record_00469(CA)

Case settled. Confidential settlement placed on the record.

I’m sorry to see it is confidential, but as I haven’t heard from John Steele in a rambling post, it probably wasn’t that good for him.  Please John, make some lie about how this was a win for you and you are now “truly” taking the fight to the pirates.  I know there have been some comments on the deposition of Abrahams, but when can we expect you to settle on that one?  Soon?  I bet it will make you think twice about pushing people into a corner.  The financial loss to you is probably minimal considering all the Does you have milked to date.  The real harm is going to come from all the defense attorneys who are now going to see a little bit of Prenda blood and start to move in.  A shark feeding frenzy – what a sight to imagine.  Word will get out John.  You know how lawyers work. 

Hey Paul?  Going to try that again?  I don’t think so.  😉  And I would advise not going with the Arcadia security software (Steve Lightspeed).  It is going to backfire on you.   Just my advice.

Have a great day.

DTD 🙂 

——————————————————————————————

OK, Thanks again Raul and others for posting this information up earlier.  Well to quote the movie Betelgeuse, “It’s Showtime.”

Bottom line –The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) decided the scheduled 17 Apr 12, hearing on the Motion to Dismiss from HDP (Liuxia Wong v. HDP, case # 4:12-cv-00469) was pointless and issued her order on 13 Apr 12.  DENIED  HDP_MTD_Denied_00469(CA)

Reasoning

This isn’t a great shock to many of us as we have seen that Gibbs (Prenda Law) got its foot caught in a trap and is actively trying to free itself.  Keep trying boys; you make fine entertainment for all of us.  Now there was some dribble from John Steele concerning Mr. Yuen (Wong’s attorney) getting a bit of a slap down from the court.  Based on the order, it doesn’t appear to have much effect on the court’s decision.  To think about, if I’m employing a lawyer, I want him to push hard and take some risks.  Keep up the good work Mr. Yuen.

No Controversy????  Are You Serious

This part was just too funny.  The judge goes over all the actions Prenda Law has taken to try to get Mrs. Wong to settle and then she compares it to what Prenda is telling the court – which is essentially this:

Ma’am we don’t actually believe Mrs. Wong did this and we will not sue her, so please dismiss the case against us.

The court didn’t buy what Gibbs had to say and even went so far as to note that if they truly didn’t plan on going after Mrs. Wong, how come they haven’t provided a written agreement to state as much.  Oh boy, he comes the uncomfortable silence from Gibbs and crew…………

Yes the judge obviously couldn’t understand the logic of the argument and stated:

…the Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged a real and reasonable apprehension that Hard Drive may seek to hold her liable for the alleged copyright infringement. The FAC alleges a viable claim for declaratory relief. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED.

Northern District is Not the Proper Jurisdiction

Before even addressing this weak claim, the court notes that HDP does not dispute the Court has personal jurisdiction over it AND does not offer any facts in support of its motion to show that the Northern District is improper.  Wow, that doesn’t sound good.  This is one area where Gibbs does not stick his foot in his mouth too seriously.  He is at least smart enough not to claim jurisdiction is improper, as they started this mess in the Northern District in the first place.  The judge summarizes this fact and states the jurisdiction is proper and fair.

HDP Previous Infringement Action Was Filed First

In this claim, Gibbs tries to state that since they filed the previous case first (in the same district), the current one filed by Wong should be dismissed.  The judge dismisses this because both cases are in the same jurisdiction, and an order was issued relating the two cases.

 Time to Die

HDP’s motion is now dead and they are required to file their answers to Wong’s compliant by 31 Apr 12. 

Hard Drive’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Hard Drive is directed to file and serve its answer to the First Amended Complaint no later than April 30, 2012.

What Now?

Well as of 17 Apr 12, the court issued an order putting the discovery portion on hold and directing both parties attend a mandatory settlement conference.  The settlement conference will be handled by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero no later than 18 May 12.  The judge also makes it very clear that if responsible parties (Luxia Wong and HDP Owner PAUL PILCHER – Director & President of HDP) are not present or have an approved excuses why they are not, a show cause order for sanctions will be issued.  Settle_Conf_Order_00469(CA)

The judge then states the following:

  • The Wong deposition shall commence after May 18, 2012, but no later than June 1, 2012.
  • Gibbs will “name and serve John Doe” in the 11-cv-5630 action thereafter. Hearing on an order to show cause re: dismissal for failure to prosecute shall be set for June 22, 2012, at 9:01 a.m.  What??? Does she think Gibbs is going to dismiss John Doe when pressured to put up or shut up???
  • Gibbs shall file a written response to the order to show cause no later than June 15, 2012.

Wow, the judge does seem like she knows what is going on and is not too pleased that the court is being abused by Gibbs and HDP.  The really funny thing about this is it is bound to go the same way for Seth Abrahams v. HDP, case # 3:12-cv-01006, Northern District of CA.  Currently Gibbs has filed a Motion to Dismiss similar to this one.  It is bound to be denied also.  MTD_HDP_01006

Gibbs and papa Troll John Steele know that both judges in the Northern District of CA are talking this over.  I don’t think they are very hopeful.  Funny thing is, Prenda is probably only going to take a loss on the cost of defending HDP.  HDP (Paul Pilcher) is going to be the one who likely takes it in the shorts – OR like some of his models, take a couple shots in the mouth.  😉

What do I think will happen

I think Gibbs and HDP will go to the settlement meeting and see if they can weasel their way out with as little damage as possible.  HDP has made a huge amount of money off these scams, so he should easily be able to afford to settle.  Mrs. Wong and Mr. Abrahams are in control and Prenda knows it.

If a settlement cannot be made, the deposition of Mrs. Wong and anyone else Gibbs can determine used the network will take place.  As these witnesses will be properly prepared, no incriminating testimony will be disclosed and the rope will tighten around HDP.  There is the possibility of forensic examinations, but the cost of it will make Prenda think twice on requesting it.  Actually I think Prenda will do at least one forensic exam.  If they don’t, Mr. Pilcher may make a claim of ineffective counsel against them – so true! LOL!

Two Main Factors

What is HDP willing to pay out to make this go away?

What will Mrs. Wong and Mr. Abrahams accept?

Public Service Message to Mr. Pilcher

Please don’t let Gibbs or Steele lie to you and say that everything is going to be all right.  Think on how they treated all the John Does to get the money you both enjoyed receiving.  Yes, they will treat you the same way when it comes down to taking a loss in the court – you will be on your own.  John Steele will say he is sorry, but YOU are on your own.  Please review any legal agreements you have with them and see who is at risk.  I highly doubt Prenda will “Take one for the team.”  

—————————————————————

I truly hope Wong and Abrahams will go the distance and at least get the deposition of Prenda’s forensic agents (6881 Forensics LLC) on record.  This would really put a damper on the Trolls.

More to come – stay tuned.   *** Here is a 18 Apr 12, news article on this case – http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/18/45736.htm

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 - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Brett Gibbs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to You are “Wong” Mr. Gibbs (Prenda Law) – Hard Drive Productions’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED – 4:12-cv-00469

  1. Raul says:

    Another great post!
    While reading about these CA foibles of Gibbs it makes me want to reacquaint myself with the California Rules of Professional Conduct. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/code/CA_CODE.HTM Specifically Rule 3-310(B)(4), Rule 3-400(B) and, of course, Rule 3-700(B)(1).

  2. The Tod says:

    Oops! It looks like the Troll Bridge is on fire.

  3. Raul says:

    This suit could also be a stalking horse for something much larger. Time will tell.

  4. steven says:

    So Yuen took a client (Wong) who was released from liability and instead of walking away, tried to go after Prenda. After wasting a lot of his client’s money and time (remember Wong has long been released), Yuen was outsmarted and cannot collect attorney fees (which is all he really wanted).

    Yuen, you should have seen that coming. Here is my question for Yuen: They must have a weird promotion system at your firm. Until recently you were listed as a partner. Now your listed as a senior associate. (http://www.mpbf.com/attorneys/yuen_steven.php) Congratulations on your ‘reverse promotion’! I am sure Prenda would be more than happy to help any other attorneys with similar dreams!

    • Raul says:

      Yawn! After Yuen utilizes this suit to establish some protocols and test some boundaries, you know exactly what is coming next. Afterward Yuen can retire on your extortion monies. Oh but wait…you aren’t getting that many settlements as of late.

      How are things going between you and Steve Jones after you each stepped into dog shit while launching your latest scam? Pray tell.

      • Raul says:

        BTW-if you believe that i have disclosed all the info I have on Steve Jones you would be mistaken but unlike you ethically challenged trolls, I do have a line that I will not cross unless provoked (you would be amazed how disliked Steve Jones is in xbiz-even by his Bros IMHO).

    • Here is my question: why Gibbs signs his “outsmarting” crap as a lawyer for non-existing firm “Steele Hansmeier”? Panic mode?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hi John Steele. You have not used this IP address for a while. Is this your Miami residence or place of work? Decided not to use the proxy? I hope you did it on purpose and were not being sloppy. I look forward to reading any such documents you care to share with me and the readers here on how Yuen is messing up. If there was any mess up by Yuen, you bet the other lawyers have learned your trick and will not fall for it again. One battle win does not lead to a complete victory. Of course I will report the truth and give you credit for anything your are not trying to BS us on. I will also point out your lies and use your words against you. 😉 You of course have read my recent post where I quoted you (Big Bad Wolf Post). Have a great night and don’t drink too much.

      DTD 🙂

    • anonymous says:

      “Congratulations on your ‘reverse promotion’! I am sure Prenda would be more than happy to help any other attorneys with similar dreams!”

      Your not such a success either…..

    • Doe says:

      “Who was released from liability”….yesterday. You forgot to add yesterday. I’d wager that’s what he really wanted–the document Mr Gibbs finally filed saying we were wrong we’re really sorry and we promise we won’t sue you. Now the fun should really start. Is his name still up on your website? I imagine if the new suit coming only asks for attorney fees you’d be getting off lightly…

      • Raul says:

        Gibb’s covenant not to sue may not be the get out of jail card that he wishes for in this lawsuit as it may not go far enough in ending a case or controversy. Gibbs describes the covenant not to sue as follows:
        “Defendant has issued Plaintiff a comprehensive covenant not to sue. (See Exhibit A, Covenant Not to Sue) This covenant prevents Defendant from naming Plaintiff as a defendant in the 5630 Action or suing Plaintiff in any other action for direct or
        secondary infringement liability in regards to the claims in the 5630 action. (Id.) Consequently, Plaintiff cannot now plausibly describe any real or reasonable apprehension that she may be subject to liability with respect to Defendant’s claims in the 5630 action”
        Wong’s complaint alleges that Gibbs dropped the first harassing lawsuit when it became problematic only to file a second lawsuit with the purpose of harassing Wong into a
        settlement. Who is to say Gibbs will not sue Wong again for infringing on yet another HDP video not covered by the covenant not to sue? Given the “totality of the circumstances” a judge could easily find that there still exists a case or controversy.
        Gibbs present motion to dismiss largely hinges on Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex Eyewear which can be found here http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15685866350960414054&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

      • doecumb says:

        Excuse the cross post from SJD’s site.

        The Revolution vs. Aspex case that the stain-ful Steele logic depends on does not seem entirely comparable. Gibbs/Steele/Prenda may be hoping for more FUD & hiding weak reasons since the related cases are complicated to review.

        It stills seems like Gibbs, “Steve” John Steele and Prenda are saying “we promise to be trustworthy even though we have a long record of not being trustworthy”. Why not treat wolves to free bottles of steak sauce to discourage their attacks ?

      • Anonymous says:

        There is also the as-yet-unresolved issue of compensating Wong for her time and trouble… Based on Buffy’s drunken rant he seems to think this covenant not to sue is some magical ward against attorney’s fees, but after suing someone twice and demanding a monetary settlement each time, dropping a promise not to sue on the day an answer to a countersuit is due seems awfully desperate and is surely too little, too late.

        We can infer, since John was kind enough to mention attorney’s fees in his little outburst, that this is actively eating his mind. That was a tell; John is AFRAID that Wong and Yuen are going to be able to make him write a nice fat check. Hopefully he’s worrying about it right now. Hopefully he’s been worrying about it every day and every night and will be for some time to come. Hopefully he will worry about it some more as the Abrahams case progresses.

        Really John, if you are going to create as many enemies as you have, maybe you should read The Art of War or at least learn to keep your mouth shut. Telegraphing your moves to your enemies and allowing them insight into your fears and weaknesses will be your undoing. You certainly have a perfect partner in Steve Jones/Lightspeed, who was stupid enough to do that WSJ piece where he talks about how he tries to keep a low profile lest his neighbors find out what he does for a living. I fear I may be ignoring my own advice by giving you these tips, but you have proven to be such a hopeless fool that I’m not very worried that you’ll listen.

        In any case, now that we know Prenda will drop a suit when challenged, Yuen or another enterprising attorney can turn this into a nice little business. Using a template for a suit against a Troll plaintiff, just charge a few hundred bucks to file it and wait for Prenda to come begging with a covenant not to sue.

      • @Anonymous: very well said: double each of your words.

    • Sloppy Johnny says:

      more of the same fud! He was never a “Shareholder” and was never listed as one.

      Is that all you got?

      Do you really think MPBF is just going to take it on the chin by some punk ambulance chasers and call it quits!

      Again, you are Wong

  5. Raul says:

    Yo Anonymous,
    With respect to the counterclaim=covenant not to sue. Good idea.
    After all Gibbs has demonstrated that this is a good and sound tactic.

  6. DieTrollDie says:

    Thank you SJD. Well the Wong v. Hard Drive Productions case (4:12-cv-00469) has been settled as of 7 May 12. Link to settlement record is in the main body of the update post.

    DTD 🙂

  7. Can anyone tell me exactly what Wong and/or Abrahams are claiming against their trolls?

  8. James Alexander says:

    I am following this blog with interest, primarily from the first amendment standpoint regarding the ever-shrinking realm of obscenity law, and using some of the swarm/bittorrent cases in my media law class. I am puzzled why Wong bothered to bring up the obscenity defense, that Hard Drive’s adult fare is not entitled to copyright protection, in paragraphs 83-89? That water went under the bridge long ago – it hardly buoyed her case. I grant that she can show direct harm by plaintiff’s actions, but challenging content eligibility, especially if copyright has been registered, is hardly the direct route to block trolls.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Wong was fighting back and used all available options to get Plaintiff to give up and pay her out. Seems to have worked. As far as the claim that porn doesn’t deserve copyright protection, I don’t think it is completely over or been fully addressed. According to the Constitution, they are given for science and the useful arts. I don’t think anybody has proved porn is a science or a usualful art. I would also tell you to read the recent court order in the Fantalis CO case where the judge told Plaintiff (Malibu Media) that if the jury finds the movie obsence, they will not be afforded copyright protections.

      DTD 🙂

      • anony says:

        Let’s not also forget the court case in New York right now about whether lap dances and exotic dancing is an art. So far according to the New York Supreme Court it is not and subject to taxation.

        I know its not the same as porn, but it is somewhat relevant.

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