Prenda Response To Harris Motion To Dismiss – AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS

4 Sep 13 Update

On 3 Sep 13, Prenda/Goodhue filed a response to Mr. Harris’ Motion to Dismiss and request to amend his counterclaims against Plaintiff.  Prenda tells the court that they do not object to dismissing the case against Mr. Harris.  Prenda does oppose Mr. Harris’ request to amend his counterclaim, as he has failed to prosecute it for seven months.  “Pot calling the kettle black.”     Prenda_RespMTD_02144(AZ)

Defendant requests the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. (See id. at 5.) Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s request. The Court’s Order regarding statutory damages (ECF No. 92) has changed Plaintiff’s stance on further litigating this action. For this reason—and not for any of the reasons stated in Defendant’s motion to dismiss—Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.  {My emphasis/DTD}

SJD (@fightcopytrolls) recently tweeted this and it brings it home.

The number one sense a true con artist must possess is a sense when to quit. Too late for #Prenda.  

Faced with the fact of having to disclose all the settlements the original DC case and other spin-offs generated, Prenda decides to cut and run.  Shocking! The only thing that would be more shocking is Mark Lutz actually showing up to a deposition and answering questions in a clear, concise, and relevant manner.

Mr. Goodhue (I bet you love having to put your name on these – it is going to haunt you Mr. Goodhue) tells the court various reason why the case should be dismissed.

Harris’ Failure to Prosecute – Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation – Court’s Need to Manage its Docket – Risk of Prejudice to Defendants/Respondents – Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives – Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on Their Merits

No great arguments here.  Just the simplistic pleading of a sad firm trying to escape with as little damage as possible.  What I did find funny was Prenda’s claim that Mr. Harris “destroyed” the computer used to infringe upon Plaintiff’s movie (Page 4, Section C.).  If he did destroy it, how come they didn’t claim spoliation and seek sanctions or proceed with discovery/depositions???

Based on what I have seen from Judge Snow, I’m inclined to think he will be happy to dismiss the case without prejudice and be done with this mess.  I can also see him granting Mr. Ticen’s motion for attorney fees.  I hope the judge will at least make some comments on the clearly bad faith efforts of Plaintiff in this case.

Arizona is pretty much dead as a good spot to try any other BT copyright infringement cases.  Even Malibu Media/Keith Lipscomb will think twice about approaching some AZ lawyers.  Any Plaintiff’s who bring a BT copyright infringement case in AZ, is likely to be placed on a short leash by the court and held to prosecuting a case to the end.  Not the type of environment a Troll wants to work in.

DieTrollDie 🙂

27 Aug 13 Update

On 25 Aug 13, Attorney Paul Ticen filed a reply to Plaintiff/Prenda’s response to his motion for attorneys fees – Previous post.  It is well worth a read, as you can feel the contempt Ticen has for this Plaintiff.   Doc93_NP_Response_02144(AZ)   TicenDecl_Fees_02144(AZ)

…Plaintiff’s Response fails to rebut the non-parties showing that they are eligible and entitled to attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff either ignores argument and case law, or takes it out of context. And significantly Plaintiff makes up logic defying facts in support of its position that the non-parties were Mr. Harris’ co-conspirators. The Court should award the non-parties their attorneys’ fees, which would have never been incurred but for Plaintiff’s bad faith subpoena.


…Really, all six of the non-parties participation in downloading and uploading “Sexual Obsession” spanned more than 1 1/2 years? It’s doubtful that the acclaimed motion picture “The Shawshank Redemption,” let alone the Internet blockbuster “Sexual Obsession,” would generate such an interest in a movie that he/she would participate in a BitTorrent swarm for that long. Despite the absurdity of this claim, which Plaintiff cannot corroborate with any evidence whatsoever, key facts cuts against it…

SQ1Ticen clearly establishes his clients have the eligibility and are entitled to fees; Plaintiff/Prenda fails to rebut any relevant issue, and highlight its use of “made up facts” in its sad response.

Ticen tells the court that John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy are “the Plaintiff” and they control the actions of it.  As such they are jointly and severally liable for the attorney’s fees.  He also invites the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing into these issues.

As the old saying goes, “when it rains, it pours.”  Prenda is taking on so much water in its various cases that it is having a hard time trying to conduct damage control.  The captain of this ship (Goodhue) would like nothing better than jump into a life boat and row away.  The best Prenda can hope for is Goodhue’s self-preservation instincts will at least minimize the damage they are about to take.

JS1I’m not sure if Judge Snow will conduct an evidentiary hearing, but I’m happy to bet the award of attorney fees will happen.  The smartest thing Prenda could do right now is pay the fees and then some.  Too bad their greed and stupidity will overpower any reasonable thoughts.

I will leave you with another bad joke from Prenda local counsel, Jacques Nazaire, Case #2:12-cv-00262-WCO (Patel case).   Archived Docket   This is in response to an email sent from Sophisticate Jane Doe ( when Nazaire failed to mention her Web site in a recent filing.


Come on Nazaire, you could at least find some better “Yo Momma” jokes on the Internet.  Here, let me help you.

Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her

Yo mama’s such a slut her favorite appetizer is whorederves

Yo mama is like the sun, look at her too long and you’ll go blind.

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 -
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Prenda Response To Harris Motion To Dismiss – AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS

  1. DonaldB says:

    Don’t pause at the curb, go straight to the gutter!

    I’m hoping a oblique reference to this email appears in the judge’s ruling. Using the phrase “too much mileage” would be right. Just enough to leave Nazaire wondering if being a slightly better person would have improved the result.

  2. that anonymous coward says:

    I expect moron to file yet another missive to the court whining about how DARE someone publish an email he sent and then mocking for it.

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is the post concerning the Nazaire “Yo Momma” email. Classy.
    DTD 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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