The Necessary Evil Of Speaking To A Troll – TCYK LLC Case 2:13-cv-01020 (IAND)

HBell_NA1DieTrollDie is not at his home port right now.  I’m at an east Coast location taking in some “interesting” studies for a few weeks.  Until I return home, my articles are likely to be fewer in number; but please don’t hesitate to contact me.

In this update to TCYK LLC case 2:13-cv-01020, Troll Hamilton has recently taken some action of interest.  We have TWO Pro Se Defendants who have filed answers denying the allegations. 

As I previously pointed out, Troll Hamilton made a motion to dismiss Defendant Doonan.    Doc33_VolDismiss_01020(IA)  Well on 10 Apr 14, Judge Edward McManus granted the voluntary dismissal of Defendants Fox, Jennings, and Doonan WITH PREJUDICE.   Doc36_01020(IA)   Now I have no doubt that Defendant Fox and Jennings were dismissed after settling with Troll Hamilton.  What was a bit of a surprising to me was the dismissal of Defendant Doonan after she filed an answer denying the allegations.   Doc29_Answer_01020(IA)   I have it on good accord that Defendant Doonan did not pay a settlement or even agree to a walk-away deal.  This was a move by Troll/Plaintiff to avoid having to move the case forward.  Congratulations to Defendant Doonan – the Troll was made to back down.

In accordance with FRCP 41, Dismissal of Actions, a judge can dismiss a case against a defendant who has filed an answer.

(2) By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for inde pendent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

So according to FRCP 41(2), the court decided to dismiss the case against Defendant Doonan via a court order.  If Defendant Doonan had made counterclaims, the case still could have been dismissed, but the counterclaims would have stood after the fact.

So Troll/Plaintiff weaseled out of  having to move forward with discovery and the eventual motion for summary judgement once the deposition and forensics came back with nothing.  So right now we only have two named defendants left who have filed answers – Davidson and Reinert.   Doc30_Answer_01020(IA)    Doc35_Answer_01020(IA)

On 24 Apr 14, Troll Hamilton filed a motion to compel Defendant Davidson to comply with a court order.   Doc37_01020(IA)   Troll Hamilton informs the court he is unable to comply with the court order (past deadline of 27 Mar 14) for submitting a Scheduling Order/Discovery Plan because Defendant Davidson has failed to contact him.  Troll Hamilton informs the court that on 6 Mar 14, he sent a letter to Defendant Davidson requesting to discuss the case.  According to Troll Hamilton, Defendant Davidson has not contacted his office.

If this is true, Defendant Davidson needs to contact Troll Hamilton as soon as possible to make it clear he is not ignoring the court order.  I would also suggest that Defendant Reinert contact Troll Hamilton and make this fact clear.  It is my view that Troll/Plaintiff does not wish to take this case through discovery or trial.  The cost of such actions is more than they want and it has a good chance of going bad for them.

ICreamEV1Once a Pro Se Defendant files an answer, they should contact Plaintiff and not appear to be hiding.  At this point, discussing the case with Troll/Plaintiff is going to be a necessary evil.  They are already concerned that a Pro Se answer has been filed; no reason to give them hope by failing to speak with them.

DieTrollDie 🙂    The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.”  – {Capt. Bart Mancuso – The Hunt for Red October}

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.

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