27 May Update – TCYK LLC Cases in Iowa (2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020)

The last multi-Doe TCYK LLC case I can find was filed in Colorado (7 Does), on 3 Mar 14.  Since then we have seen various local Trolls focus on a small number of single Does and occasionally name and serve them.  One Iowa Troll firm who went the name & serve route is Jay Hamilton and his partner Alexander Johnson.  I have written a couple of articles on his cases – most recently on the Necessary Evil of Speaking to a Troll.

This post deals with two IA cases – 2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020


In this case, we have one remaining defendant (Matthew Beltramea) who filed a Pro Se answer (full denial).   Beltramea_Answer_Doc36_01019(IA)   Due to inaction on this case the court made notice (1 May 14) that unless some action is taken by 15 May 14, the case would be dismissed.   Doc37_01019(IA)   Troll Hamilton immediately filed a motion to compel and stated that Mr. Beltramea would not respond to a letter he sent to him on 16 Apr 14.   Doc38_01019(IA)   Doc38-1_01019(IA)

Based on Troll Hamilton’s motion and declaration the court decided not to close the case and on 20 May 14, a hearing was set before Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles – 29 May 14, 9:00AM.   Doc39_01019(IA)   Note: the judge required the appearance of both parties.  On the same day, Troll Alexander Johnson, Hamilton IP Law PC, filed a notice of appearance for this case.   Doc40_01019(IA)   Based on this notice, I assume Troll Johnson will be at the meeting.

Now based on Mr. Beltramea’s answer, I cannot see why he would not work with the Troll to issue a joint scheduling order and discovery plan.  It would not surprise me if the Troll sent the “letter” to the wrong address or even failed to respond to Mr. Beltramea when he tried to contact the Troll.  In two days we will have the hearing and hopefully Mr. Beltramea can explain this issue.

The scheduling order and discovery plan is just a waste of time in my opinion.  The Troll has no desire to go this route and doesn’t want to waste more money.  The main discovery items are going to be a deposition of Mr. Beltramea and other network users, and a forensic examination of the household computers.  Now based on Mr. Beltramea’s answer, Troll/Plaintiff may actually conduct a deposition or two.  If they decide to motion the court for a dismissal and do nothing in the discovery plan, then more weight is given to Mr. Beltramea’s claim that the Troll is gaming the systems and should be sanctioned.


This is another Troll Hamilton/Alexander case for the same worthless movie (my opinion).  We have two named defendants remaining (Terri Eicher & Joshua Davidson).  Both defendants were served and on 26 Feb 14, Mr. Davidson filed an answer denying the allegations.  Mrs. Eicher has not filed any answer and will likely have a default judgement issue against her.

On 24 Apr 14, Troll Hamilton made a motion to compel against Mr. Davidson for failing to meet and confer on a joint scheduling order and discovery plan as mandated by the court  (ECF # 37).  On 14 May 14, the court set a mandatory hearing on the motion to compel – in Magistrate Judge Scoles’ courtroom – 29 May 14, 9:00AM.  Note: This is the same hearing for both IA cases.

Hopefully the court is growing tired of these Troll escapades and will pose some hard questions to them.  I will not hold my breath and hope that Mr. Baltramea and Mr. Davidson attend the hearing.

NFT1I’m of the opinion that for this Troll/Plaintiff, they will simply cut and run when given the chance.  As I previously posted, Troll Hamilton was able to get the court to dismiss Defendant Doonan (with prejudice) even with an answer denying the allegations.   Doc29_Answer_01020(IA)  Doc36_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.  This Plaintiff (TCYK LLC) is likely done, but the people behind these actions will continue to file these cases for as long as the money is good.  Hopefully after these cases are closed, the Iowa courts will take a dim view of the Trolls.

DieTrollDie 🙂

“DAMN THE TORPEDOS, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!”  –  {John Steele comment (My belief) made on 20 Feb 12} – failed attempt to portray himself as Admiral David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870)

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.

2 Responses to 27 May Update – TCYK LLC Cases in Iowa (2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020)

  1. Anon E. Mous says:

    To be honest I have trouble believing with out any evidence that the Troll contacted these two individuals ( MY OPINION ) In there filings I do not see any evidence to say that they attempted to contact either individual that filed an answer denying the allegations by the Plantiff.

    I have an issue with the fact that Plaintiffs counsel have not provided any documentation that confirms they tried to communicate with the defendants. No dates & times of phone calls made to the defendants, No copies of any communications sent to the defendants with dates of mail or service by registered mail to discuss the matters at hand. All you have is the trolls word, which I take with a grain of salt. One would believe that a lawyer would provide factual evidence to prove their point that they tried to contact the defendant. So color me skepitcal.

    I also believe the Plaintiffs counsel wishing to discuss a joint scheduling order and discovery plan to be a red herring if you will. I would be iof the opinion that it would be more along the lines to scare the defendant with hohw much the costs will be for the case and how the defendant will be on the hook for huge fees and if they go to court it will cost this much more but you can settle now and get out of this cheaper than if you fight me on this.

    Honestly if the defendants did willfully ignore the troll, I really can’t say I blame them. The troll is more than likely going to try tactics to trap the defendant into an untenable position because of the defendants having no legal knowledge of the system and how copyright litigation works and the steps and procedures that needs to be followed and what should/shouldn’t be done and what to say and not say to the plaintiffs counsel which is what a defense counsel would advise a defendant in a case like this if they had retained a lawyer to deal with plaintiff’s counsel.

    The Plaintiff’s counsel as we all know isn’t going to look to help out a defendant with any advice, so unless the defendants have or are retaining counsel I would be of the belief they will be for a little bit of a rough ride.

    It could be the defendants were advised not to communicate with the troll to allow the Judge to guide the defendants by spelling it out in court how and what the procedure is going to be with dealing with the Troll with discovery etc etc. Some may think that is a stretch but there are Judges that will give defendants a little latitude as to how the process goes and what the defendant must do ala Mr.Harris’s experience.

    While there is the chance the defendants have ignored the trolls calls, I find it a little on the unbelievable side. If they were going to ignore the Plaintiff’s counsel I would have to think they would have done this from the get go and filed nothing with the court and ignored or threw away Plaintiffs counsel notices by mail and ignored going to court even if served.

    The facts that two defendants filed answers leads one to the conclusion that they were not going to let a default judgement happen. I am sure the Plaintiffs counsel wasn’t expecting this. I do wonder if they have been notified of this hearing and the dates and time it takes place at.

    Frankly I will be surprised to see how far the troll is going to take this. I don’t see the troll recovering a lot of money from the defendants depending on how much the troll expends to further the case. You would have to think the joint scheduling order and discovery plan is really more of a fishing expedition to see if they can push to scare the defendants to settle and to gauge how far the defendants are going to pursue their case against the plaintiff with respect to the case.

  2. Pingback: Copyright Troll Voltage Pictures Closes TCYK LLC Cases in Iowa (2:13-cv-01019 & 2:13-cv-01020) | 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