31 Jan 13 – Update
Troll Dumas/Prenda Law acted faster than I expected on their second attempt at getting a default judgment from the court. 2nd_DefaultRequ_00808(IN) GloverServ_00808(IN) DumasDecl_00808(IN) PropOrdDefault_00808(IN)
Now the only difference I see in this request is Troll Dumas claims they did an “investigation” and determined Mr. Glover isn’t military.
Plaintiff, however, conducted its own investigation and determined that Defendant is not active in military service. (Decl. of Matthew E. Dumas ¶ 5.) This investigation is further substantiated based on the fact that Defendant was personally served at his residence. (Id.); (see also Ex. A.)
Here is what Troll Dumas has to say about the investigation they conducted.
5. On information and belief, Defendant is not in the military service or armed forces of the United States of America. This belief is based on Plaintiff’s investigation of Defendant and the fact that Defendant was personally served at his residence.
So troll Dumas, you are trying to tell the court you were unable to conduct any type of investigative activity (Lexus/Nexus, Property records, etc.) to obtain Mr. Glover’s SSN and birth date??? With those pieces of information you could have had the DOD search its database and confirm if Mr. Glover was/wasn’t military. As it stands now, the court has only the word of Troll Dumas to go by. If this investigation was anything as good as the one they conducted on Josh Hatfield, then it isn’t worthy of even being used as toilet paper. The court in the Hatfield case found that Prenda efforts were seriously lacking and “its conduct is at least suggestive of bad faith.”
Now it is entirely possible that Mr. Glover isn’t military, but I don’t think Troll Dumas actually spent much time really trying to determine this. They probably have a good idea who Mr. Glover is and that they are unlikely to ever get anything out of him. I believe Prenda Law would love to close this POS case ASAP and possibly even try to claim victory with the default judgment. It would be really funny if the court based on Troll Dumas’ weal investigation made them post a bond (see the previous update below).
David Graves (CP Productions) – Will you get anything from the default judgment??? Or did Prenda screw you over? You never bothered to tell us why you no longer employ their wonderful services.
23 Jan 13 – Update
Thank you Doe for the recent update on the status of request for a default judgement against Mr. Glover. On 22 Jan 13, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion because they did not abide by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 USC, Appx. § 521. Default_Denied_00808(IN) SCRA_Act_text
Based on this denial, it appears Mr. Glover may be a member of the US Military. I didn’t see anything in the docket that states this, but the address on the summons appears to be on Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana National Guard. If Mr. Glover is part of the National Guard, he could be serving on a deployment. The court made a note in its denial, informing Plaintiff it has to check with the Department of Defense to determine Mr. Glover’s status.
If Plaintiff does not know the individual Defendant’s military status, it must consult the website the Department of Defense maintains so the public may comply with the Act.
It should be interesting what Plaintiff can find out about Mr. Glover. If it is anything like what they found out on Josh Hatfield, it will be a joke. Take a read of section 521 of the SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT, there are some interesting parts to it. Plaintiff is required to provide facts that show Mr. Glover is or isn’t in the military. One interesting bit is an issue of a “Bond.” Prenda loves “Bonds.” 🙂
(3) Defendant’s military status not ascertained by affidavit. If based upon the affidavits filed in such an action, the court is unable to determine whether the defendant is in military service, the court, before entering judgment, may require the plaintiff to file a bond in an amount approved by the court. If the defendant is later found to be in military service, the bond shall be available to indemnify the defendant against any loss or damage the defendant may suffer by reason of any judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant, should the judgment be set aside in whole or in part. The bond shall remain in effect until expiration of the time for appeal and setting aside of a judgment under applicable Federal or State law or regulation or under any applicable ordinance of a political subdivision of a State. The court may issue such orders or enter such judgments as the court determines necessary to protect the rights of the defendant under this Act.
As the Prenda Law Inc., (AKA: Anti-Piracy Law Group) fiasco with “Alan Cooper” deepens, many of the other Plaintiff cases are progressing in some fashion. In my previous post on this case, the local Prenda counsel served a summons/complaint on the main defendant, Gerald L. Glover III, on 16 Nov 12.
On 31 Dec 12, Troll Dumas motioned the court for a default judgement against Mr. Glover because he failed to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint against him. Motion_Default_00808(IN) Served_00808(IN)1 Served_00808(IN)2
As previously discussed, any of the other “joint tortfeasors” (448 Does) who are involved in this case should not settle with Prenda. In the complaint, Plaintiff states Defendant Glover and the 448 joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally. This means that for this single claim of copyright infringement, all 449 defendants share in the judgment against them. As Mr. Glover failed to respond to the complaint/summons and Prenda provided a sworn declaration that he was properly served, the court will be hard pressed not to enter a default judgement against him. Now what damages will the court award to Plaintiff is the next big question.
As this court did not seem too impressed with Plaintiff/Prenda’s efforts, I would not expect a $150,000 statutory damages award. On 6 Nov 12, Judge Debra McVicker Lynch told Plaintiff it did not show good cause for its failure to sever the defendant and threatened to recommend the case be closed. It was only then that Prenda served Mr. Glover with the complaint at the last possible moment.
Now once the statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and other costs are determined, Mr. Glover is responsible for paying them. Whatever the amount is, it is applied across the board to all 449 defendants, through Mr. Glover. If Mr. Glover wished to, he could try to go after the 448 joint tortfeasors and have them pay a share of the award (unlikely). Let’s do some fun math – Mr. Glover is assessed $150K in statutory damages – 449 defendants (joint tortfeasors). $150,000 / 449 = $334.08 (approx.). For $20K – $20,000 / 449 = $44.55 (approx.). For $750 – 750 / 449 = $1.67 (approx.).
What I would love to see is for Mr. Glover to motion the court for information on how much Plaintiff/Prenda law has already received in settlements from the 448 joint tortfeasors. The amount of settlements already collected is directly relevant to the statutory damages award, as Plaintiff claims everyone involved in jointly and severally liable for this infringement. I wish the court would do this on its own, but that is unlikely in my opinion.
Even if they only received settlements from 30% of the Does (134 approx.), that is still $455,600 (134 * $3400) – way over the $150K statutory damage limit for a single act. Note: If 44 of the Does settled and paid $3400, that would net Prenda/Plaintiff $149,600.
What I do expect is for Prenda to keep contacting the 448 joint tortfeasors who did not settle and threaten them with a law suit. It would be really stupid for them to keep trying to extort settlements, but their greed will make it hard for them to stop. Anyone who does receive such threats after this motion for default judgement should write the IN court and provide documentation.