“Defendant Motion to Dismiss” – The Phantom Doe Part 3, Case 4:12-cv-02049, AF Holdings LLC. v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield

I go away for a few days and things start to get interesting.  I decided to check PACER on this case and noticed a bunch of activity.  One thing I didn’t see filed was the “Return of Service,” (shows Hatfield was served a summons) but as Hatfield now has an attorney, I will assume he was served  (*** Was served on 10 May 12 *** – why hasn’t Prenda filed/updated the court?).  I will take some time to go over Defendant Hatfields’ Motion to Dismiss and comment.  Untill then, I figured I should get it out in the open first.


NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION, 31 May 12.  Nicholas Ranallo is on the case.  I think the “negligence” claim is going to get tore up.  🙂  Note_Appearance_Ranallo_02049(CA)  I wonder if Prenda will try to amend the complaint and directly name Hatfield as the defendant.  As this didn’t go well for Prenda in the Wong case, I’m betting they will not do this. 

DEFENDANT HATFIELD’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, 31 May 12.  Hatfield_MTD_02049(CA)  Bad_Summons_02049(CA)  Proposed_Order_Dismiss_02049(CA) – Can’t believe Gibbs actually provided the process-server an unreadable copy of the complaint – classic!

District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Oakland Division, assigned this case, 5 Jun 12.  Judge_Hamilton_Assigned_02049(CA)  Mr. Ranallo motioned the court for this case to be heard by a magistrate court, but Prenda declined to agree.  Mag_Court_Consent_02049(CA)  Prenda_Decline_Mag_Court_02049(CA)  Pend_Dist_Court_Judge_02049(CA) 

Prenda/Gibbs is going to have fun trying to keep this turd of a case afloat.  Mr. Ranallo is well versed on the negligence claim.  As this case stemmed from an earlier voluntarily dismissed case, Gibbs can’t easily dismiss it and refile – Two Strikes.  Let keep watch and see if Gibbs does his normal screw up. 

Please read the Motion to Dismiss and provide me your thoughts on it.

Hey John.  Is this one of your first 100 named/served Does?  Doesn’t look like too good of a start for the negligence claim.  More to come.    

DieTrollDie 🙂

“It is on the menu”

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

10 Responses to “Defendant Motion to Dismiss” – The Phantom Doe Part 3, Case 4:12-cv-02049, AF Holdings LLC. v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield

  1. Raul says:

    The caliber of Ranallo’s legal analysis is excellent and his writing goes beyond superb.

  2. jdoe says:

    lol i love how he starts off by saying

    “according to the plaintiff….Northern District now has a duty, which extends to the producers of pornographic materials and Plaintiff herein, to monitor and secure their connection in such a way that no court user can connect to the network to commit a copyright infringement. This is a hefty burden, especially given the fact that this court (quite intentionally) has offered an unsecured Wi-Fi access that can be used by anyone, including those who wish to commit copyright infringement.”

    and then goes on to say that the CDA essentially exempts any account owner from liability because it defines them essensially as their own isp. lol this is truely amazing on one hand and slightly scarry on another.

    if a data retention law goes into effect then everone who provides service to anyone else (pretty much anyone who had a wireless or a multi-user wired router, so most households that have highspeed internet) would then have to maintain information loggs and some form of active DNS filtering for whatever timeperiods that that stupid data retention law has (most routers loggs self clear after mere weeks)….

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Yes, loved the opening remark about the Northern District Court and its Open WiFi. Some months ago I mentioned that the Washington DC Court has an Open WiFi for its customers and staff. I’m sure the courts(s) conducted legal reviews prior to allowing Open WiFi.

    When I first looked over the Motion, I wondered why there was no answer filed as to the complaint and that counter claims were made. That was because the most of the claims are against the Phantom Doe and not Mr. Hatfield. The negligence claim is so thin and lacks any legal support it is a joke. Essentially it is – “Hatfield had a duty to secure his Internet connection because I said so.” Sad, very sad work. Ranallo tells the court that the case should be dismissed or a new complaint alleging full details of what Mr. Hatfield is alleged to have done (Contributory Infringement).

    Danger Danger Danger – Here is where Prenda is on dangerous ground. If they have the balls (or stupidity) to actually lay out an infringement claim verses Mr. Hatfield, they open themselves up to counterclaims once the answer is filed by Mr. Hatfield. This is exactly why Prenda is floating this turd case in the court – to try and avoid counterclaims. Mrs. Wong got her judge against Prends/HDP. Seth Abrahams will be next to get a judgement against Prenda/HDP. Going for a third try John??? If they don’t make some feeble effort, it sends a message to all the other copyright defense attorneys on how to kick this one in the nuts. Catch 22 😉

    Speaking of sad work – Ranallo points out that Gibbs was playing extra sloppy when he filled the initial complaint. Remember how it was not readable. I contact the court and told them I wanted a readable copy or a credit to my account. Well I guess Gibbs and staff did the same thing for Prenda case – AF Holdings v. John Doe and Jonathan Botson, 5:12-cv-02048 – the PACER copy is similar. What does this say for the way Prenda runs its operation? Comment John……. Silence 😉

    DieTrollDie 🙂

    • Raul says:

      The first 2 paragraphs make a common sense mockery of the negligence claim. The rest just massacres it in sound legal argument.

  4. When Nick’s article originally ran on TorrentFreak, Steele dropped by to call it an advertisement for an underemployed lawyer trolling for business. He did not address the content directly.

    I’m sure Nick is way above any vindictive thoughts, but I, as a “third party”, has granted myself an ethical indulgence to enjoy the impending smack-down while replaying Steele’s high-pitch barks.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Ohai SJD!
      I guess the shoe is on the other foot for Steele now, hes going to be an unemployed troll looking for a lawyer to save him from his business.
      One can be very vindictive and still keep the words polite and proper… and the best part is Steele will never figure it out…

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, I remember John making those comments directed toward Ranallo. He just can’t stop himself sometimes. Crow anyone?

      DTD 🙂

  5. Pingback: Phantom Doe #6, AF Holdings LLC, v. Josh Hatfield, 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | DieTrollDie

  6. Pingback: End of the Prenda Phantom Doe (#7), AF Holdings LLC, v. Josh Hatfield, 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | DieTrollDie

  7. Pingback: Night Of The Living Prenda (Phantom Doe #8), AF Holdings LLC, v. John Doe (Josh Hatfield), 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | 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