No Extension To Serve = TCYK, LLC Cut-Rate Settlement Deal – 2:13-cv-01020 (IAND)

10 Feb 14 – Update

On 5 Feb 14, Troll Hamilton dismissed Anthony Threatt With Prejudice, indicating some sort of agreement/settlement was reached.   Threatt_DismissedWP_01020(IA)   I’m of the opinion Plaintiff accepted a very low settlement.  Note: It is not my suggestion to take such an offer, but I understand everyone’s situation is different.  My view is that if they are that willing to drop their settlement amount significantly, they really don’t want to drag this case out any longer.



The fact the Trolls (and their Plaintiffs) are such a bunch of money-grubbing sleaze balls never stops to amaze and sicken me.  BTW – that is my opinion.  The facts surrounding the TCYK LLC cases across the country is probably one of the worst ones in terms of the number of people affected.  I will grant that Malibu Media (X-Art) is the one Troll operation that is probably worse.

Here is one TCYK case that got my attention.  TCYK, LLC v. Rexin et al, # 2:13-cv-01020, Iowa Northern District.  Originally it was against Does 1-13.   Archive Docket

The case was opened on 25 Jun 13, by Troll Jay Hamilton, Hamilton IP Law.   On 11 Jul 13, the court granted early discovery to subpoena the ISP subscriber records for the IP addresses in question.  On 4 Oct 13, the court granted a motion by Troll/Plaintiff to extend the service deadline to 26 Jan 14.  During this time period, at least one Doe settled with the Troll and was dismissed (Doe #2 on 14 Nov 13, Doc #12).  On 21 Nov 13, the court granted a motion by Troll/Plaintiff to delay submitting a scheduling plan and discovery plan until no later than 27 Mar 14.

On 16 Jan 14 (10 days before the service deadline), Troll Hamilton, files another request for an extension to serve the defendants.  He asks the court to extend the deadline to 27 Mar 14 (also the deadline for the scheduling plan/discovery plan).  On 20 Jan 14, the court flatly denies the request.   Doc16_01020(IA)   The court was not happy that the pre-discovery was authorized more than 6 months ago and that for at least 4 months Plaintiff knew that no additional extension would be granted.

deal2So what is a money-grubbing Troll supposed to do now????  He has so many greedy little Trolls babies to feed.  Mean judge 😦   It turns out that was the perfect time to send out “cut-rate” settlement demand letters to the people who wouldn’t “play ball.”  Take a look at these settlement demand letters dated immediately after the judge made his order.

HamIPL_Setl1_01020(IA)   HamIPL_Setl2_01020(IA)

They are the standard Copyright Troll settlement letter, but check out the amounts they want.  $1,000 and $1,500.  No that isn’t a typo, the Troll drastically reduced the settlement amount.  I have another TCYK settlement demand letter, where the amount was $7,500!   TCYK_7.5K_SetteLtr   That shows you how desperate the Troll/Plaintiff wants to get a settlement and how they do not want to risk full discovery and/or a trial.  They can see that the court is unhappy and need to shut this down as soon as they can squeeze a few more dollars out of people.

One day prior to motion hearing (30 Jan 14), Troll Hamilton filed a second motion to amended the complaint.  On 30 Jan 14, Troll Hamilton told the court they have the true names of the ISP subscribers for the 11 non-settling defendants (Two Does settled) and wished to amend the complaint with their names.  The court granted the motion and on the same day, Troll Hamilton filed the amended complaint.   FAC_01020(IA)   FAC_EXs_01020(IA)    It is sad the court did not dismiss the case and tell the Troll it had two weeks to file single cases on the defendants Still, I think this court is going to be upset when little to no activity happens.  I really doubt the Troll is going to name/serve all 11 defendants.  I would love to know the date that the ISP subscriber data was released to the Troll.  I think a motion to dismiss IAW FRCP 4(m) {120 days to name/serve} may be in order – or soon will be.

As I said, the depth of depravity of the Trolls/Plaintiffs is always a bit of a surprise.  If you are one of the named defendants, keep an eye out for Troll letters, Waivers of Service, and possibly summons paperwork.  I would not doubt that the Troll is going to try to find at least one defendant that is a good target for a default judgement.  Don’t let it be you!

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.

5 Responses to No Extension To Serve = TCYK, LLC Cut-Rate Settlement Deal – 2:13-cv-01020 (IAND)

  1. SRT135 says:

    Thanks for the info. I will keep it all in mind.

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a shared folder with a couple document from a recently dismissed TCYK LLC case (originally 98 Does) out of the Eastern District on TN – 3:13-CV-00251.

    In December 2013, the court on its own dismissed Does #2-98, telling them to file single defendant cases. It also told Plaintiff it had 30 days to name and serve doe #1. On 4 Feb 14, the court dismissed the case against Doe #1 for failure to prosecute (FRCP 4(m)).

    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