31 Jul 12 Update – Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Case # 3:12-cv-01006

31 Jul 12 Update

Thanks SJD for tweeting this update.  On 27 Jul 12, a case management hearing was held on case # 3:12-cv-01006, Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions (HDP).   27Jul12_CMO_01006(CA)   Docket   The following was ordered by the court.

    • HDP will dismiss case # 4-11-cv-05634, HDP v. John Doe no later than 3 Aug 12.  Initially filed on 21 Nov 2011.  Docket 
    • No later than 3 Aug 12, HDP will file an amended complaint against Mr. Abrahams.
    • Case is referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) – to occur with 90 days.  ENE background.
    • Both parties will submit a stipulated briefing schedule on dispositive motions due to the court no later than 4 weeks prior to the hearing.
    • Case was continued until the next case management conference, 26 Oct 12. 

What I find interesting is the fact that by “dismissing” Mr. Abrahams a second time, Mr. Yuen can then motion for dismissal IAW FRCP 41.  Two strikes posting 

That is even if Prenda will bother with filing an amended complaint in the first place.  All they could possibly get is actual damages, if they could win.  Who knows, maybe they will try the negligence claim or perhaps something just as ridiculous.  

So once the HDP case against Mr. Abrahams is dismissed (4-11-cv-05634), that only leaves the Abrahams case against HDP (3:12-cv-01006) still open. 

The legal fees for Mr. Abrahams keep going up and Prenda knows this.  They previously whined to the court about this and stated that Mr. Abrahams is going to get stuck with the bill.  There is no reason to complain about Mr. Abrahams legal bills unless they feel they may get stuck with them.  😉  As they had to pay Mrs. Wong an undisclosed settlement, I’m sure Prenda/HDP want to keep the damage to a minimum.  Much more to come on this one. 

6 Jul 12 Post on this case  28 Mar 12 Post on this case    23 Mar 12 Post on this case   3 Mar 12 Post on this case        

DieTrollDie 🙂

“Some ships are designed to sink…others require our assistance”

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.

22 Responses to 31 Jul 12 Update – Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Case # 3:12-cv-01006

  1. This case and the Wong case have been flagships (if there is such a thing as two) for cases that will no doubt be coming after these. I have been very impressed with the way Steven Yuen has handled these cases, and the FRCP Rule 41 will be a laughable mistake if it turns out to be this way.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I’m wondering about the Rule 41 issue. It is funny the judge (& I assume both parties) agreed to a dismissal, but then the judge states they can amend the complaint. If Prenda agreed to dismiss it, it Will funny.

      DTD 🙂

    • I don’t think R 41(a) will prevent the follow on suit because it looks like it was done by court order, not a simple notice or stipulated voluntary dismissal. Unless I’m wrong and it was a voluntary 41(a)(1) dismissal.

    • Anonymous says:

      That these pathetic circuses are Prenda’s flagship cases, engineered to strike fear into the hearts of Does everywhere, says it all about how seriously people should take their threats.

  2. Anonymous says:

    DTD alludes to it in his comment about how Prenda can only hope for actual damages, but for those coming late to the party it is always worth repeating that the case that provoked this, Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118, was for a work that was not registered with the Copyright Office at the time the alleged infringements occurred. Infrigement dates were in March 2011, the work was not registered until November 2011, so Prenda’s statement in the original complaint that a registration was pending was a lie and their request for statutory damages was based on this fraud.

    Prenda was so stupid that they then filed a single-Doe case against Abrahams even with the registration problem. Due to the history of shameless fraud in this case, I’m hoping Yuen makes them pay for this one. They didn’t have quite the registration problems with Wong v. HDP, so I believe there is more opportunity to turn the screws and maybe even go for sanctions, damages or class action with this one. I can envision a class-action suit with all defendants from HDP v. Does 1-118 as a class, since they were all victims of extortion attempts based on Prenda’s fraudulent claims that the work was registered.

  3. This is very interesting. It looks like Prenda Law is trying to make an example out of Mr. Abrahams, and the two are getting ready to duke it out. That said, because the Court ordered the dismissal/new complaint, Rule 41(a) doesn’t apply. So it would not have been a dismissal on the merits or with prejudice.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think Abrahams is getting ready to duke it out, but not Prenda. They are cowards. They settled Wong v. HDP and it didn’t even have the glaring lack of registration the Abrahams case has. Just read Prenda’s answer to Abrahams’ complaint to get an idea of how serious they are about letting this get to trial, they don’t respond to any of Abrahams’ allegations, they deny the registration date of the work, they deny the title of the work, it’s insane. I mean, you can read Prenda’s complaint for HDP v. Does 1-118 and it has the title of the work! Then you can go to the Copyright Office website and look up the registration date! I don’t know who these idiots are trying to fool, but it blows me away that this level of evasiveness and unprofessional ism is tolerated by the legal profession or the courts.

      • Anonymous says:

        Even better, I noticed that in their counterclaim, Prenda does mention the work by name, the same name they deny in their answer.

      • Raul says:

        It will be interesting to see how this evasiveness or “hiding the ball” (perhaps, stupidity?) plays out at the state level. I am not a big TV viewer but I did enjoy the FX series “The Shield” and there was an episode where rat traps were being set to spring when guys put their penises through “glory holes”, which I think we will see the legal equivalent of soon..

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m not sure stupidity is the most significant element, but certainly unpreparedness and incompetence.

        We all understand that PR and FUD are the most important tools of the Troll, the scam only works as long as some Does believe the threats. Trolls know people are watching, so they know that every filing has PR value for better or for worse. I suspect that in many cases where we see batches of dismissals with prejudice, especially right when a case is about to go 120 days without service or a judge has issued an order to show cause, that Prenda will dismiss a bunch of Does who have not settled with prejudice just to make it appear that settlement rates are higher than they are. This may be for the consumption of prospective clients as well. The fact that we have Does complaining that they have received the robocalls and informal discovery requests in spite of dismissal with prejudice reinforces my suspicion.

        Then we have the “individual” cases, really single-Doe cases in all but a tiny number of exceptions, that have gone largely unlitigated, without even serving a summons, because the entire point was to show people watching that Prenda will really, sort of, go after people who won’t settle. The problem of course is that they assumed by simply filing “individual” cases everyone would get so scared they’d settle, so when those Does didn’t settle and Prenda didn’t follow through they just looked like fools.

        In the context of every filing having PR value it is amazing that Prenda’s answer and counterclaim here are as half-assed as they are. Imagine Marc Randazza appearing so weak; for having so much bluster, Buffy and Pinocchio didn’t even try to defend themselves much less go on the offensive in a meaningful way. Prenda’s answer to the Wong and Abrahams complaints tells everyone that they aren’t aren’t prepared to fight and calls into question whether any of their attorneys have ever even defended a lawsuit or have any idea how to do so. We have seen more aggressive, competent answers from pro se Does, so for Prenda to go “no comment” across the board is utterly pathetic. I take it to mean that they simply do not have confidence in their ability to write an actual answer without making things worse for themselves, so they are once again trying to stall and avoid litigation at all costs.

        Something tells me they are not too happy about these and are worried not just about these cases but what is coming next. Maybe something is already brewing, like an FBI or IRS investigation, that nobody in the Doe community is aware of yet. Remember how Buffy never used to shy away from making an ass of himself, behaving in an utterly unprofessional and indiscreet manner on these forums and other tech news sites, stuffing his foot in his mouth all the way to the knee? Then it gradually dwindled off, and I believe his last appearance was in April when he told us to expect a hundred named defendants in a week and a thousand more in May…

        Think about what an arrogant prick John Steele is and his history of mouthing off and try to imagine what it might take to shut him up. I’m not alluding to anything specific as I don’t know anything interesting that hasn’t been posted here or on SJD’s site, but I can’t help but wonder what could possibly have made him shut his big fat mouth.

      • SJD says:

        @Anonymous Excellent points. Which lead us to inevitable conclusion: publicizing their incompetence is one of the top priorities.

        One of the easy things to do (and Raul has already started) is to take the cases listed on the wefightpiracy “sample cases” page and analyze them. Many of these cases have utterly failed already, but Steele is “busy busy busy” to purge the list.

        One may think that I give up ideas to the crooks. The funny thing is that if he decides to purge/delete his list now, it will be equally bad: sure it will result in my post ridiculing their action and lowering already low credibility of threats. A lose-lose situation for losers.

  4. Pingback: Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions heats up | Copyright Infringement Advisor

  5. Anonymous says:

    This comment is unrelated to this case but has anybody gone to rfcexpress.com recently?
    I noticed the Warner Bros. Studio is now going after people and i believe are actually serving summons to those accused.

    Did shit just hit the fan?

  6. DieTrollDie says:

    Thanks SJD for Tweeting this – http://ia600805.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.42.0.pdf
    PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT SETH ABRAHAMS’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. The motion will be made on 21 Sep 12, in front of Judge Spero.

    “Mr. Abrahams’s motion is based on the grounds that he is entitled to a judgment for a declaration of non-infringement of defendant/counter-plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc.’s (hereafter “Hard Drive”) purported copyrighted work based on the doctrine of res judicata due to Hard Drive’s dismissal without prejudice of its two prior actions against Mr. Abrahams as a potential Doe defendant associated with his Internet Protocol (hereafter “IP”) address of 98.248.90.217. Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), Hard Drive’s dismissal of its second action operates as an adjudication on the merits. As Mr. Abrahams can no longer be liable to Hard Drive for copyright infringement, all other issues and prayers for relief are moot as no actual controversy presently exists between the parties so as to warrant any other declaratory relief. Moreover, Mr. Abrahams is deemed the prevailing party in his action for declaratory relief of non-infringement of Hard Drive’s purported copyrighted work.”

    Have fun Troll Gibbs!

    DTD 🙂

  7. AC says:

    There’s been a lot of action since Abrahams filed his motion for Judgement on 8/17.

    On 8/31, Hard Drive filed an opposition/response to the motion: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.43.0.pdf

    Yuen made short work on that response, and just a week later filed his response to Hard Drive’s opposition: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.44.0.pdf

    Both are good reads, but for different reasons. Gibbs is really grasping at straws here, it’s kind of sad. Yuen rips him to shreds accordingly.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks! I look forward to reading them.

      DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It was so hard to read the garbage Gibbs was telling the court in his opposition. I could see his nose getting longer. He tried to tell the court that the 1st & 2nd Doe cases were not even similar and the “two-strikes” rule didn’t apply. If I was the judge, I would be very offended by having read such an obvious attorney CYA effort. Yuen does a good job at responding to the BS and I can’t wait to see the court’s ruling.

      DTD 🙂

  8. Pingback: Troll Gibbs Fails The “Duck Test” – Seth Abrahams Responds To Hard Drive Production, 3:12-cv-01006 (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