This is a repost from the Pietz Law Firm Blawg concerning a very disturbing development out of the Illinois State court. Thank you Mr. Pietz for bringing this out into the open. As it is from a State court, it has been open since 9 Jan 13, with little public awareness.
The Pietz Law Firm has recently started receiving calls about a new lawsuit filed by Prenda Law in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The case is styled LW Systems v. Christopher Hubbard, Case No. 13-L-0015.
If you recently received a letter or email from your ISP about this case, please contact The Pietz Law Firm; we would like to hear from you and may be interested in representing you. The Pietz Law Firm is very familiar with Prenda Law and has previous experience representing clients in a Prenda matter filed in St. Clair County.
LW Systems may be related to Livewire Holdings, LLC, which purports to be based out of a UPS Store in Washington, DC.
NOTE: We would caution you to NOT contact attorney Adam Urbanzcyk who is representing the “lead defendant” Christopher Hubbard in this case. Due to potential collusion with the plaintiff, it may be that Mr. Urbanzcyk and his client Christopher Hubbard could be adverse to you.
“Agreed Order” in LW Systems. The scope of this subpoena authorization is staggering. Essentially, Prenda has been given carte blanche to issue subpoenas to hundreds of ISPs, and to then use the information however it wants, to sue anyone for anything.
Complaint in LW Systems. The usual smattering of state law claims, most of which are completely preempted by the Copyright Act. Another attempt to avoid federal court.
Having reviewed these, The Pietz Law Firm is inclined to get involved in this action.
It looks like one of the “normal” Prenda Law Inc., State court cases for hacking a system. Take a read and pay particular attention to the “Agreed Order.” This is where it gets very disturbing. Complaint_13-L-0015(IL) LW Systems – Agreed Order_13-L-0015(IL)
The 22 Jan 13, agreed order between Plaintiff and Mr. Hubbard (represented by Adam Urbanzcyk), allows Plaintiff to request the ISP subscriber information for the alleged co-conspirators of Mr. Hubbard. We have seen this ploy before, where the Plaintiff/Prenda Law makes this ridiculous statement (my opinion) to an otherwise clueless court (Deal Article1, Deal Article2). “Are you in bed with each other?” (Judge Sanjay T Tailor, 25 Sep 12, asked John Steele and Adam Urbanzcyk this question),
The court takes what both parties state as fact and issues the subpoena. Plaintiff claims that the identifying information on the co-conspirators are critical to the case against Mr. Hubbard. This is a load of crap as usual. Plaintiff already has the information that identified Mr. Hubbard. I will assume (someone please correct me if wrong) that Mr. Hubbard was previously part of a group of personnel where Plaintiff had a subpoena issued. This agreement is nothing but Mr. Hubbard cutting a deal with Plaintiff to reduce the settlement amount (if he has to pay anything at all).
So what does the agreement allow? The agreement allows Plaintiff to request ISP subscriber information from ALL the co-conspirators. As the agreement is extremely thin on details, the exact numbers of co-conspirators is unknown at this time. I will assume it is a substantial number, as Plaintiff listed out only the ISPs they planned to serve. The list of companies they plan to serve is listed on two pages, three columns wide (Sorry for the quality of the agreement). It also appears that not all of the companies listed are traditional ISPs. A rough count shows over 300 ISPs/Companies on the list. As there is NO list of what public IP addresses are associated with these ISPs/Companies, you can only guess at how many people they are going after. If you go with a simple 100 personnel per ISP/Companies, that is over 3000 personnel.
Lets talk money. Figuring a $4,000 settlement offer, the maximum possible revenue generated by this agreement is estimated at $12,000,000. OK, we know they are not going to get a 100% settlement rate. At 50% – $6,000,000/ at 25% – $3,000,000/ at 12.5% – $1,500,000. Hell of a return on a small business investment.
I will leave this for now. I’m sure there more is to come once personnel from these ISPs/Companies start to get the subpoenas. As stated by Mr. Pietz, do not contact Mr. Urbanzcyk, as it appears he and his client are working with Plaintiff. Depending on what happens today in Judge Wright’s CA court (Twitter feed #Prenda), this matter may take a serious hit, but I doubt these Bozos (Yes my opinion again) will give up that easily.
*** Erin Russel Page on this case ***
*** Last note: Look at the complaint section talking about malware infection of Plaintiff’s system. I guess if it could happen to Plaintiff, it could happen to a portion of the Does out there.