Motion For Attorney Fees ($16K) Against AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS

16 Aug 13 Update

On 16 Aug 13, Prenda/AF Holding attorney Stephen Goodhue filed his response to Paul Ticen’s motion for attorney fees.   Response_AttyFees_02144(AZ)   Not a great shock that it was filed, as the Prenda crew is taking hits from all sides right now and is trying to mitigate damages as much as possible.  I bet Mr. Goodhue would love to drop this case and bury his head in an Arizona cactus for a while.  The motion is nothing special from the Prenda crew, except the gall in claiming the six non-party Cox Communications didn’t have standing to be authorized attorneys fees, their motion to quash the subpoena was only successful because of a procedural delay, and that they failed to show any bad faith on the part of Plaintiff.  I don’t know what Judge Snow will think of this, but it has the smell of the well-known Prenda equine excrement – My Opinion.

At least Prenda didn’t fail us in the very last part of their response.  This just shows you the sloppiness and stress they are under.  What day did you sign the response Mr. Goodhue???  Or did a Prenda associate electronically sign it for you???

DieTrollDie 🙂

Htub_02144Note: We are still waiting to see if anything written comes from Judge Snow concerning the motion to show cause hearing that took place on 19 Jul 13.

———————————————————————

I tweeted (https://twitter.com/DieTrollDie) about this yesterday, but thought it would be nice to add to the Web site for wider distribution.  On 2 Aug 13, Attorney Paul Ticen (Kelley / Warner PLLC) file a Motion for Attorney Fees in the Arizona District court, for case 2:12-cv-02144, AF Holdings LLC v. David Harris.  Archive Docket

The motion for attorney fees covers the Six Cox Communication customers (out of 71) , Prenda claimed were co-conspirators of Mr. Harris (See previous posts).  Mr. Ticen is asking for a total of $16,075.00 in attorney fees.  He lays out a good motion to show the “Bad Faith” on the part of Prenda in seeking the subpoena.

Plaintiff’s efforts in issuing this subpoena was deceptive because it used the cover of flushing out evidence supporting the conspiracy claims to satisfy Rule 26(g)(1)(B), while glossing over key facts (i.e. dates of purported infringement) that would render such a conspiracy claim factually implausible. And why was this done? This was part of Plaintiff and Prenda Law’s well documented business model to squeeze the non-parties and other subpoena targets for settlement dollars. There is no other logical explanation for Plaintiff to go through the expense of the subpoena unless there was financial upside, because surely, Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims would fail the instant it tried to present evidence that the non-parties and the others targeted were Mr. Harris’ co-conspirators. The bad faith is readily apparent in issuing the subpoena under the auspices of attempting to identify Mr. Harris’ purported co-conspirators. But the bad faith is indisputable and indefensible because of the clear ulterior purpose for its issuance.

Motion_AttyFees_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXA_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXB_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXC_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXD_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXE_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXF_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXG_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_EXH_02144(AZ)   Motion_AttyFees_ProOrder_02144(AZ)

SS1Concerning this case, we are all waiting for the written notice/order from Judge Snow concerning the Show Cause hearing that took place on 19 Jul 13.  *** See the comments concerning the results of it ***   The judge shut down the effort of Prenda/AF Holdings to obtain ISP subscriber information on 71 AZ Cox Communication customers.  It appears the judge didn’t want to sanction Prenda for what is an obvious fraud upon the court (this part I don’t understand).  😦

As far as the case against Mr. Harris, it is still open and it is Prenda’s move.  Prenda and Mr. Goodhue would like nothing better than to drop this mess as soon as possible.  I’m sure Mr. Goodhue wishes he could travel back in time and tell Prenda to go pound sand – his choice to represent Prenda is a costly mistake on many levels.

The problem is that Mr. Harris has answered the complaint and doesn’t appear to want to walk-away right now.  The best Prenda can hope for is for the case to languish and the judge to shut it down on his own accord.  Mr. Harris could pursue counterclaims, but I don’t think the judge really wants anymore of this Prenda circus side-show.  It would be nice if Judge Snow decided to add some punitive multiplier to the award of attorney fees, but I don’t think this will happen – but one can hope.    The good thing about this case is it is extremely unlikely that any future mass Doe BitTorrent copyright infringement case will be filed in AZ.  I think even Malibu Media would have a hard time with single Doe cases right now in AZ.

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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Motion For Attorney Fees ($16K) Against AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS

  1. Anon E Mous says:

    Good on Mr Harris for sticking with it. I believe that Prenda will try and settle with Mr Harris and hope Mr Harris accepts and they can slink away somewhat unscathed, or as you say the Judge shuts it down. Either way this has been an astounding defeat for the Prenda gang and another one that will go on the books as prenda tries to wond down and stop the damage from being further inflicted

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If Prenda had any brains, they should try to settle with Mr. Harris – that is offer him more than a simple walk-away (no money Mr. Harris). Goodhue may be open to settling with Harris, but the Prenda Bozos are too busy running to think straight.

      DTD 🙂

  2. Pingback: Motion To Dismiss (Improper Change of Venue) AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS | 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