Elf-Man LLC v. 7 Defendants – Motion For Default Judgments DENIED, 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED)

3 Sep 14 Update

Today Judge Rice denied (with leave to renew) Troll/Plaintiff’s motion for default judgements against the seven remaining defendant in Elf-Man case 2:13-cv-00115(WA).   Default_Denied_Doc_121_00115(WA)pdf

The decision to deny the default judgements was based on the courts concern regarding the requested damage award and the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as questioned by Defendant Lamberson in case 2:13-cv-00395 (WA).

However, in this case, where Plaintiff has requested sizable statutory damages, and where a companion case has called into question the merits of Plaintiff’s substantive claims, the Court elects to exercise its power under Rule 55(b)(2) to “conduct hearings” to “determine the amount of damages” and “establish the truth of any allegation by evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiffs to brief and provide evidence supporting its substantive claims and amount of damages against each defaulting defendant separately. Upon a showing substantiating Plaintiff’s claims against each Defendant, the Court will reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and request for attorney fees.

So Troll/Plaintiff has been “directed to submit a memorandum and evidence in support of its claims against each defaulting Defendant and in support of its request for damages on or before October 6, 2014.”

Hole_Cat1Here is where Troll/Plaintiff has to weigh the benefit of actually submitting whatever evidence they have (or will possibly make up – My opinion).  Anything they submit will certainly be used by attorney Lynch/Defendant Lamberson.  We will see if they understand the first rule of holes.

As far as the Lamberson case, the judge has yet to rule on the motion for attorney fees and sanctions.  This denial does not fair well for Troll/Plaintiff in the Lamberson case, as the judge clearly has “concerns” on the validity of their claims.  Troll/Plaintiff may simply decide to let the 6 Oct 14, deadline pass and not file a memorandum and/or present evidence.  Simple enough to do, but that could further push Judge Rice to grant the motion for attorney fee and sanctions.  You just can’t make this stuff up.  😉

I expect the judge will wait until after the 6 Oct 14, deadline to rule on the Lamberson motion.  In the meantime I’m sure we are going to see more stupid Copyright Troll tricks to provide amusement.

DTD 🙂

Happy 4th of July!!! 

Vintage_FW1LATE ADDITION –

Here are 5 document recently filed in the Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson case, 2:13-cv-00395(WA).  I will likely make them a separate post, but until then, please enjoy them with your burgers, cold beer, apple pie, or what ever makes you happy.  Note: reading these while eating/drinking may not be advisable.  😉    These documents are going to make a big bang!  Troll/Plaintiff/Germans are really not going to like these.  Especially the fees/costs amount Attorney Lynch is asking for – $100,000!

Shared Folder containing Lamberson Documents

On this grand anniversary, I salute all the Troll fighters out there and want to thank everyone for their support – every little bit matters.

Now while keeping up with the Elf-Man v. Lamberson case (2:13-cv-00395(WA)), I came across a Motion for a Default Judgment for the Elf-Man case that Lamberson spun-off from – 2:13-cv-00115.   Doc_112_Motion_Default_00115(WA)   Doc_112-1_Decl_Lowe_Default_00115(WA)   The case shows it was terminated as of 1 Jul 14, but we have yet to see the final court order awarding the damages against the seven defaulting Defendants.

This in my view is Troll/Plaintiff trying to close out this rather embarrassing affair and possibly come away with a little extra cash.  As Lamberson (via Attorney Chris Lynch) has this Plaintiff trying to run and hide, they would like nothing better than to close out the remaining cases before it get real ugly for them.

As to the Motion for Default Judgment, I’m saddened that these seven people are sticking their head in the sand and risking the judgment of the court after only hearing the slimy words of the Troll.  Once a BitTorrent Copyright Troll case gets this far (being served with a summons/complaint), it is time to consult with an attorney knowledgeable and experienced in these cases.  Yes it may cost you some money, but it is likely to be LESS than what a court may award the Troll/Plaintiff in damages.  This is especially true if you (or a family member) didn’t do this.  For further examples of what not to do, please see the Fightcopyrighttrolls.com article concerning Malibu Media/X-Art default judgments in PA.

Bottom Line

The Troll/Plaintiff is asking the court to award them $30,000 plus costs/fees PER Defaulting Defendant!

Now I don’t know what the court will actually award, but the MINIMUM the court can award is $750 plus reasonable costs/fees. As the Defendants did not bother to respond to the summons, the court will only hear what the Troll has to say.

What The Troll Claims

  • Copyright Infringement Has Been Proven – Hard for a judge to think otherwise or even see that you are NOT some type of serial infringer damaging the lives and income of some poor Plaintiff.
  • The Copyright Infringement Was Willful – Willful infringement will allow the Troll/Plaintiff to ask for the maximum statutory damage award – $150,000.

The troll even goes so far as to tell the court that since these Defendants refused to participate, Plaintiff was not able to “explore the full scope of their infringing activity which may have included the distribution of countless copies of Plaintiff’s work.” The Troll also claimed that since the defendants did not to file an answer, they amounted to actions to evade service and escape the court and thus were still a threat to continue the infringement.

The Problem For The Troll

This case was filed on 22 Mar 13, alleging that 29 Does “collectively acted” via BitTorrent and the copyright infringement arose “out of the same occurrences or transactions, or series of occurrences or transactions and that there are questions of law and fact common to each of the Defendants.” These statements were made by the Troll to justify the joinder of the Does under one case. Troll Plaintiff further reaffirmed this when they filed their First Amended Complaint.   FAC_Elf-Man_00115(WA)

Now with this Motion for Default, the Troll is asking for ONLY $30,000 plus costs/fees. They even go so far as to tell the court that they could be seeking $150,000 per Defendant, but they are trying to be reasonable. What a load of $#@^!

30K_00115(WA)

Their problem with this motion is that according to 17 U.S. Code § 504 – Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits, statutory damages (What Troll/Plaintiff is asking for) for two or more “jointly and severally” liable infringers is limited to a maximum of $150,000 (See (c) Statutory Damages).  The motion as written asks the court to award a total of $210,000 (7 Defendants X $30K), plus approximately $23,555 in costs/fees (7 X $3,655).  Actual requested Total is $233,970.29.

Another Troll Insult

This is one I find particularly low, even for slimy Troll/Plaintiff.  Did you notice that two of the Defendants have the same last name (Barnett) and reside at the same residence???  I don’t know if this is a Husband and Wife, but I do know that the alleged date/time of infringement and the public IP address are the same.   Barnett_00115(WA) Most likely both of the Barnett’s names were on the ISP account.  So is the Troll saying that because there are two names associated with the same IP address, they can seek double damages??? OR are the idiots claiming that it was downloaded/shared via two different BT clients on the same IP address from BOTH Barnetts??? This is just wrong.

Settlements So Far

Now I haven’t had a chance to try to guess the number of settlements the Troll was able to get, but I would estimate those settlements were at least a couple thousand dollars per Doe.  The exact amount Troll/Plaintiff received could be a relevant factor in adjusting the award of damages the court will eventually order.  For example, if the Troll was able to collect $25,000 from Does who initially settled, this could be factored into (reducing) the statutory damage award.  Example: Statutory damage award of $30,000 – $25,000 (Settlements) = $5,000 plus fees/costs.  So for the defaulting Defendants, I will suggest that if Troll/Plaintiff actually comes after you for collection, you need to hire an attorney and explore this avenue.

In my opinion, this scum-bag Troll dealing is exactly why the former Troll Attorney Maureen C. VanderMay had to remove herself from this case.  Go figure.

Issues have arisen with Plaintiff’s representatives that preclude me from both continuing with representation of Plaintiff and complying with the governing rules of professional conduct. {Troll VanderMay, ECF#109-1, 2:13-cv-00395(WA)}

DieTrollDie  🙂

A_FY1

 

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.

8 Responses to Elf-Man LLC v. 7 Defendants – Motion For Default Judgments DENIED, 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED)

  1. Jane Doe says:

    It looks like a lot of fake billing is presented here. Vandermay’s billing of nearly $8,000 to file “boiler plate” complaint and subpoena ISP providers. Elf man v Lamberson pretty much proved the Plaintiff is not legit; shell company investigators, investigators went into hiding to avoid being deposed, case management from Germany or the Philippines. The Plaintiff’s attorney knows their serious legal problems and still attempt to pretend they have a valid claim? At what point are these attorneys with 30 plus years of experience, held accountable for committing fraud in Federal court?

  2. Anon E. Mous says:

    I am more astonished that after the circus that the ELF-MAN vs Lamberson case has become and even though these cases were spun off from it that the Judge is even considering allowing the troll to ask for these damages with the defaults that Lynch has uncovered

    IMHO the Judge should hold off any ruling until Elf-Man vs Lamberson has played out to the end. Since these cases were initially part of it and the Plaintiff has many unanswered questions around the legitimacy of the company, it’s status the copyright and the German investigation techniques, I believe that is a fair path to take.

    The Troll is anxious to get this pushed thru asap so they can cash out before the spit hits the fan in the Lamberson case more than it already has. If the Judge lets the Troll do this with the spun off cases you can bet your ass this will embolden the trolls to do this in other cases when there is trouble on the horizon

  3. WDS says:

    RE: The Additions

    I am pleased to see that Lamberson attorney mentions the Defaults in his papers and at least strongly suggests that they are trying to cash in without having a case at all.

  4. Christenson says:

    Hey DTD:
    https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/answer_doc12_00248tx.pdf
    contains some information that I would have expected to see redacted.
    No need to leave this post up after you have seen it.

  5. Pingback: Elf-man v. Lamberson: defendant agrees to let plaintiff go… for $100,000 | Fight Copyright Trolls

  6. SJD says:

    Elf-Man, Elf-Man, hold it a little while,
    I think I see my friends coming, Riding many a mile.
    Friends, did you get some silver?
    Did you get a little gold?
    What did you bring me, my dear friends, To keep me from the damn default?
    What did you bring me to keep me from the damn default?

  7. Raul says:

    Oh my! This is just getting better and better. :: munching popcorn ::

  8. Anon E. Mous says:

    I dont see the trolls not filing a memorandum and evidence. I believe the chance to grab some easy cash from a default judgement is too irresistible for them not to chance it. With that said, is it the smart play for the trolls? No, It isn’t but that addiction to easy cash is hard to shake for them.

    The trolls I believe will hope that the judge will rule on this before the Lamberson ruling comes down. Honestly they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position if you ask me. Any evidence they submit will be getting closely looked at and if it relates to what is alleged in the Lamberson case, the trolls will be in trouble on that front.

    If the Lamberson ruling comes down beforehand and the Judge compares it to these elf man defaults there could be fireworks. So really the trolls are knee deep in it already. I am sure they are wishing they would have walked away much much sooner but as I said that easy cash is hard to give up, ask the Prenda gang

    Should be fun to see how this is all going to play out in front of a court that senses the smell of stink coming from these cases and making the court look like a bunch of clowns for rubber stamping it along.

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