Judge Vanessa D Gilmore, TX – “You Have Been Shopped,” DC case 1:11-cv-02176 becomes TX case 4:11-cv-04501

***   This posting is due to  a very nice Doe who forwarded me the fact that forum shopping was happening.  Thank you Doe.  To any Doe – Please feel free to send me your ideas or anything you find.  DTD 🙂  ***

On 19 Dec 11, Sophisticatedjanedoe posted a story about Paul Duffy, Prenda Law, closing down two cases that were assigned to Judge Robert Wilkins – Paul Duffy dumps the second lawsuit assigned to an “inconvenient” judge.

The second case Duffy dropped as soon as it was assigned to Judge Wilkins was 1:11-cv-02176, Millennium TGA Inc. v. Does 1-939, filed on 7 Dec 11.  Complaint_02176(DC)  The wonderful title of the movie in this case was “Shemale Yum – Jenna Comes A’Knocking!”  Nine days later, Duffy voluntarily dismissed it – must be some sort of Troll record.  Dismissed_02176(DC)  To dismiss a case with 939 Does, something must have scared Prenda/Duffy.  To abandon all that potential settlement money must have been so frustrating.

It was so frustrating, that they (Prenda) decided on a new plan.  Four days later (20 Dec 11), they had Troll Douglas McIntyre, Houston, TX, filed case 4:11-cv-04501, Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe, in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.   Complaint_04501(TX)  The movie is the same title as in 1:11-cv-02176. This “new” case does not have a straightforward list of all the Does. It only has one main Doe defendant and then 23 pages of co-conspirators (public IP addresses). Doe1_IP_address(04501(TX)  Other_IP_Adrreses_04501(TX)  Doe #1 in case 4:11-cv-04501, is public IP address 64.91.220.134, with a recorded date/time of alleged infringement on 5 Dec 11, 03:28:19 (UTC), location: Houston, TX.

A quick examination of the DC complaint disclosed that on page 13, Doe #1’s public IP address 64.91.220.134 can be found (3rd up from the bottom). The date/time is also the same – 5 Dec 11, 03:28:19 (UTC).  Now I haven’t gone through and validated all the remaining IP address, but I’m pretty confident majority are there.

Sample comparison of public IP address (date/time) in both cases

  • 107.2.237.107, 5 Dec 11, 01:25:50 (UTC) – Yes
  • 108.53.36.121, 22 Nov 11, 06:28:52 (UTC) – Yes
  • 173.48.124.241, 26 Nov 11, 21:11:45 (UTC) – Yes
  • 205.201.209.2, 19 Oct 11, 12:54:24 (UTC) – Yes
  • 24.113.215.15, 9 Nov 11, 20:38:20 (UTC) – Yes

If you find any significant difference in these cases, please post your findings. The only thing that stands out as different between these cases is the venue (DC verses TX), and how Prenda lists out the public IP addresses. In case 1:11-cv-02176, there are 939 Doe defendants, all accused of copyright infringement equally. In case 4:11-cv-04501, there is only one defendant (Doe #1) and 23 pages of “co-conspirators” (public IP addresses). The allegations for the new case are copyright infringement and civil conspiracy.

Now obviously Prenda feels it has a welcome venue in the Southern District of TX. It does seem odd that with this many Does, that there is no listed attorneys for any of the defendants. There are only two people who are listed as Pro Se defendants with true name/addresses. I imagine being associated with SheMale porn is going to make it harder for some people to tell anyone what is going on. In my view, it is all a load of crap, so the title doesn’t bother me. I don’t know what this judge would think of the obvious forum shopping that Prenda has engaged in, but one can only hope the court will see what sleazy methods the Trolls are using.  Dockets

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 Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Judge Vanessa D Gilmore, TX – “You Have Been Shopped,” DC case 1:11-cv-02176 becomes TX case 4:11-cv-04501

  1. Raul says:

    Very nice catch! I for one would never been on the look out for this kind of sleazy behavior. Now I will. Wow!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Damn! I meant to add this to the posting, but I was in a hurry. This sleazy incident of forum shopping was brought to my attention by a kind Doe. Thank you! I will edit the main body.

      DTD 🙂

    • doecumb says:

      (1) Is there some summary list or spreadsheet with troll cases listed by plaintiff, attorney, video title, and state ? This would make it easier to look for duplicate filings.

      There is reference to one done a year ago, but some troll changed strategy and filed smaller cases in many states. The project would take more time now.
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/tx/code/TX_CODE.HTM

      (2) It doesn’t mattter much if a few Does are added or subtracted. It’ still shopping the same case until finding a likable decision.

      (3) In some ways, isn’t it forum shopping when any troll plaintiff case that fails in one district and tried in another? They are making the same kind of claim with identical paperwork.

      (4) Can forum shopping be considered misrepresentation or misconduct ? Here’s some passages from the Texas attorney code:

      “‘Fraud’ or ‘Fraudulent’ denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.
      Rule 8.04 Misconduct
      (a) A lawyer shall not:
      …(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;”

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/tx/code/TX_CODE.HTM

  2. Stalfos says:

    I get the “great honor” of being one of the co-conspirators in this.

    Real frustrating because since none of us are actually the defendant any mtq one of us would file is automatically shot down.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      So have you gotten the Prenda letters and Lutz calls yet?

      DTD 🙂

      • Stalfos says:

        Nope, as far as I’m aware my information hasn’t been released yet.

        I do look forward to adding them to the blacklist on my phone though.

    • Raul says:

      Do still have time to file a MTQ? If so there is a RECAPPED file by David Tamaroff’s in a Sunlust Pictures v. John Doe pending in CO which makes the argument that you do have standing to file.

  3. JohnDoe says:

    All very helpful information. I am a doe in 4:11-cv-04501 and am wondering if anyone could share what steps they have taken or are planning to take. Comcast says they will release my information on May 29th if I do nothing. I would like to file a motion to quash, any help? Thanks in advance! johndoe415415@gmail.com

  4. Raul says:

    I swear DTD and SJD are Saints in my book.

  5. DTD, the missing piece to the story is that Comcast said “no” to complying with the subpoena for the reasons you identified in your article. There is currently a fight directly linking back to the Texas (4:11-cv-04501) case where Prenda sued Comcast, so to speak, in DC to force them to comply with the subpoena and reveal the names of the Comcast subscribers. The DC motion to compel case is MILLENNIUM TGA, INC. v. JOHN DOE (Case no. 1:12-mc-00150), and I wrote up an article about it this evening (actually, two, since Prenda is not the only one overtly forum shopping). -Rob

  6. that anonymous coward says:

    FORUM SHOPPING FROM THESE FINE UPSTANDING PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY?!
    I AM SHOCKED!
    *falls over laughing*
    I am shocked they thought they could continue this practice and not get called out for it once again. It would be nice if these people who are supposed to be officers of the court actually read the rules and followed them rather than using them of a checklist of things to ignore.
    It would be more entertaining if Judges actually paid any attention to this miscarriage of justice.
    But hey in Finland they just figured out someone with wifi isn’t actually responsible for the acts of others, if only we could get more than a state ruling on that here.
    I have hope more Judges will start to notice that an IP address is not a fingerprint, and the geolocation websites the trolls are using have error rates of 20-50%, by their own admission no less….
    https://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-cant-even-identify-a-state-bittorrent-judge-rules-120515/
    Now all we need is a Judge to actually get an independent expert to vette the IP gathering techniques and we’ll have the hat trick that sinks all of this crap…
    Well until 6 strikes kicks off…

  7. One of 939 says:

    Well, I certainly don’t recall ever having downloaded anything with that title. It certainly seems like something that would stick with me. I emailed Cashman Law Firm with some general questions, hope to hear back soon.

  8. StillWaiting says:

    Re. DC case 1:11-cv-02176, Comcast has filed an appeal to the motion to compel: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.153133/gov.uscourts.dcd.153133.16.0.pdf

    Millennium TGA responded on 17 May 2012: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.153133/gov.uscourts.dcd.153133.17.0.pdf

    The whole thing seems like a big old pretzel of a catch-22. Comcast can’t submit motions or arguments on behalf of its subscribers, yet subscribers can’t successfully file a motion to quash because they’re not parties to the motion to compel. And it seems like MTQs have not been very successful in the Texas court either.

    As a “co-conspirator” in this case, I’m really at a loss as to what to do. Filing a MTQ in DC or Texas seems unlikely to succeed.

    • StillWaiting says:

      Some more documents filed, but not yet available through RECAP:
      18
      Filed & Entered: 05/16/2012
      Docket Text Response in Opposition to Motion
      19
      Filed & Entered: 05/21/2012
      Docket Text Mail Returned Undeliverable
      20
      Filed & Entered: 05/21/2012
      Docket Text Letter
      21
      Filed & Entered: 05/22/2012
      Docket Text Motion for Leave to Appear
      22
      Filed & Entered: 05/22/2012
      Docket Text Motion to Quash
      23
      Filed & Entered: 05/22/2012
      Docket Text Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

  9. StillWaiting says:

    Seems that Comcast is still fighting the subpoena in DC. They’ve filed a follow-up response to the trolls’ response to Comcast’s objection to the judge’s ruling compelling Comcast to comply with the subpoena. Also asked for an extension of time to comply:

    Non-Party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) respectfully requests an extension of time of seven (7) days after the Court completes its review (Dkt. 16) of Magistrate Judge Kay’s Court’s April 18, 2012 Order (“April 18 Order”) (Dkt. 15) to disclose information required by the April 18 Order, if that Order is affirmed.

  10. Figuring it out. says:

    What does this mean for the suit overall? Does it mean anything to the Non-Comcast Does?

    • StillWaiting says:

      I’m not sure what it means for non-Comcast people. I don’t know if other ISPs are happy to comply with the TX court’s subpoena, or whether they’re fighting it too.

      • @Figuring it out @StillWaiting, this means NOTHING no non-Comcast people. However, if Comcast is successful in “not” complying with the subpoena (or if Judge Wilkins issues an order which the Texas judge applies to the whole case), it COULD have an affect on other ISPs and/or the TX case itself. For the moment, however, this whole story only applies to Comcast subscribers.

  11. StillWaiting says:

    And now, it appears that the D.C. case has been reassigned to Judge Wilkins:

    Before the Court is Comcast’s Motion for Reassignment [Dkt. No. 9] (“Comcast Mot.”),
    and Millennium TGA’s opposition thereto [Dkt. No. 10] (“Millennium Opp’n”). For the reasons
    stated, the Court will grant Comcast’s motion and order that this case be reassigned to the
    Honorable Robert L. Wilkins pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a).

    It is hereby ORDERED that Comcast’s Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is hereby reassigned to the Honorable Robert L. Wilkins. LCvR 40.5(a)(4).
    /s/
    ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
    United States District Judge

    This sounds like a good thing, no?

  12. ScaredHostage says:

    I’m one of the IP’s in these two cases. My carrier is RCN and they released my information without even telling me about it. Then a week or so ago I got a nice piece of mail from Prenda, complete with abysmal grammar and many spelling errors asking for money.

    I emailed houstonlawy3r, and have been able to take some heart reading this and a few other blogs. I’m absolutely terrified and have no idea what to do.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Don’t do anything and know the Richard Pryor response by heart if you get a call from these Bozos. They are not going to name and serve you in an individual suit OR in the mass one. Don’t give in!

      DTD 🙂

  13. ScaredyCat says:

    I am also one of the Does listed as a co-conspirator. I have Cox Cable in AZ and they did release my information. I have been fending off calls from Prenda for 3-4 weeks now. I am terrified. I don’t care what people want to download, but I am not one to download porn. Heck, the time listed on the paperwork when the infringement happened was while I was at work! There is no way I could have downloaded the offending movie. I am just not sure what to do. I read something on another site stating that they have already named a few people. I am not sure if this is true or propoganda to scare us.

  14. Pingback: TX Forum Shopping Case (4:11-cv-04501) Dismissed by Prenda Law Inc. (Prior DC case 1:11-cv-02176) | DieTrollDie

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