Case Update – TCYK, LLC v. 13 Does – 2:13-cv-01020 (IAND)

21 Mar Update

When this cases started in June 2013, there were 13 John Does.  Two Does (#2 & #5) settled early in the case.  After being chewed out by the judge for requesting another extension to name/serve defendants, Troll Hamilton amended the complaint and started to serving the 11 Does who refused to settle.  On 25 Feb 14, Troll Hamilton filed proof of service for one of the defendants (happened on 16 Feb 14).   Doc28_01020(IA)   The tactic appears to have motivated four more Does to settle.  But this also got two of the defendants to file answers (Doonan & Davidson) – not what the Troll wantedNote: one of these Defendants (Doonan) was eventually dismissed with prejudice – more to come on this. 

On 10 Mar 14, Troll Hamilton again file proof of service for another defendant that took place on 14 Feb 14.   Doc32_SubpExc_01020(IA)   I do find it funny that Plaintiff has only recently filed the proof of service that happened over a month ago.  It looks like Troll Hamilton is hoping the court will think they are actively pursuing the case because they filed this document on 18 March.

On 18 Mar 14, Defendant Rexin was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff.   Doc33_VolDismiss_01020(IA)

So as of 21 Mar 14, we have seven people who have settled; six named defendants; two defendants show proof of service (served on 14 & 16 Feb 14), and one defendant has filed an answer.  As the recent five settlement/dismissals likely happened after the defendants were served in February, the Troll is deliberately holding back on filing the proof of service.  Why???

It could be the Troll initially held out to see if the service would get people to settle.  Filing the first one was probably done to show the court they were moving forward.  The second proof of service was likely filled at that time to try to further portray they are serious about this case.  If the Troll went ahead and filed all the proofs of service, the court could tell him to move along and submit a discovery plan against the defendant who filed an answer.  This In My Opinion is not their intention.  They are simply trying to milk the settlement for as much as possible and then shut it down.  Now I know some of the Troll supporters will say I criticize the Troll when they do nothing AND then criticize them again when they do something.  Of course I do!  That is because their changing tactics are nothing more than an adaptive process to sustain a slimy business model trying to justify an extortive practice under the guise of stopping piracy and/or recouping lost revenue (My Opinion).  What a crock!

But wait DTD.  Not all Trolls are the same.  Really, here is another older TCYK LLC case that shows you what the Troll/Plaintiff have in mind.   Case 1:13-cv-03833 (NDIL), TCYK, LLC v. Does 1-112   The case was filed on 23 May 13, no defendant was ever named/served, settlements were obtained, and the case was voluntarily dismissed by the Troll on 17 Mar 14 – 299 days!   Doc_54_DismissAll_03833(IL)   Doc_55_CourtDismissAll_03833(IL)

Hopefully the judge in this case will tire of the games and tell the Troll to move it along.  As there is an active answer on the docket, Troll/Plaintiff is going to have to resolve this issue before they can try to dismiss the case.  As most of the defendants have likely been served in February, the Troll may start to motion the court for default judgements.

DieTrollDie 🙂

“The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion … and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself – ultimate cost for perfect value.”  {Robert Heinlein – Starship Troopers}


6 Mar 14 Update

On 6 Mar 14, Troll Hamilton filed a motion to dismiss three defendants (Fox, Doonan, and Jennings) with prejudice.   Doc31_MTD_01020(IA)   As the requested dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ I assume some sort of settlements was reached.  The dismissal of Doonan will make her ‘answer’ (ECF # 29) moot.  That still leaves eight defendants, to include Mr. Davidson who filed his answer on 26 Feb 13.  It is extremely possible that Doonan was offered a walk-away deal by Troll/Plaintiff; too bad those details are likely hidden behind a non-disclosure agreement clause in the settlement.  Such a deal would be advantageous to Troll/Plaintiff because they would not have to move forward with a costly (and possibly risky) discovery process.  The other two defendant likely paid some amount to secure the dismissal.



Here is an update from a previous article about a TCYK case that was filed in the Northern District of IA, 2:13-cv-01020, on 25 Jun 13.   No Extension To Serve = TCYK, LLC Cut-Rate Settlement Deal – 2:13-cv-01020 (IAND)

On 30 Jan 14, Troll Jay Hamilton amended the complaint to name the 11 ISP subscribers as the actual defendants.  This was of course only done FOUR days AFTER the court imposed deadline (26 Jan 14) to name and serve the defendants.   Doc16_01020(IA)   FAC_01020(IA)   FAC_EXs_01020(IA)   In the mean time, Troll Hamilton tried to get some of the ISP subscribers to settle with a “cut-rate” offer of $1-1.5K.

As Mr. Threat, was the only person who took Troll Hamilton’s offer,  I don’t think most of the Defendants were impressed.  So Troll Hamilton decided to actually serve the ISP subscribers in hopes it would bring them to the settlement table.  I assume he had the local Sheriff’s Office attempt to serve all the remaining defendants.  Here is proof of service for Mr. Hixson, dated 16 Feb 14.   Doc28_01020(IA)  It is interesting that he only filed one proof of service document.  This could a way to show the court they are moving forward.

What Troll Hamilton was probably not expecting (or wanting), was that Two of the Defendants (Doonan & Davidson) filed answers Pro Se.   Doc29_Answer_01020(IA)   Doc30_Answer_01020(IA)    Both of these answers were filed on 26 Feb 14.  The answers are short (2 & 6 pages each) and to the point – both defendants deny the allegations.  I’m thinking I need to make a page to show various Defendant ‘answers’ in case the name/serve tactic is expanded.


As I haven’t seen any other documents showing service was accomplished, I assume the Troll is either having trouble accomplishing the service and/or they are negotiating settlements with the remaining Seven defendants.

Now Troll Hamiltion/Plaintiff has to decide what is their next course of action.  For Mr. Hixson, the 21 day period to answer the complaint is 9 Mar 14.  If Mr. Hixson (and the other Defendants) fails to answer the complaint/summons, Troll Hamilton will be able to motion the court for a default judgement.  For the Defendants who answer the complaint, the next likely step will be the court directing a discovery plan from both sides.  For the Troll, this is most likely going to be a deposition of the ISP subscriber, followed possibly by other depositions (other network users/residents), and forensic examinations of Defendant computers.

I don’t think Troll Hamilton/Plaintiff will go past the deposition phase, but you never know.  If the depositions fail to disclose any evidence of infringement, forensic examinations are going to be costly and risky.  If both discovery steps fails to disclose any direct evidence, the Defendants could motion the court for a summary judgement.  The only angle I could see Troll Hamilton use is to suggest the Defendants removed/hid/ destroyed the computer used to commit the infringement.  A generally weak argument especially with no evidence to back it up.  As well as the court was obviously displeased with the Troll for not advancing the case and asking for more extensions with no good reason.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Troll Hamilton eventually tried to make a “walk away” deal with Doonan & Davidson if/when things start to look bad for Plaintiff.

The Troll lawyers understand there is going to be ISP subscribers who were not the infringers (Copyright Troll Mike Meier’s estimate of 30% (3 out of 10)). Their problem is if defendants are found not at fault, it will give rise to others ISP subscribers fighting back.  The Trolls are trying to maintain control of this business model, but they are often their worst enemy.  I will be only too happy to assist them in screwing it up.   😉

DieTrollDie 🙂   “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.”


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.

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