OR Court – BT Copyright Troll Tactics Overly Aggressive – Awards Defendant $17K In Fees (3:15-cv-00866)

5 Dec 2016 Update – Cobbler Nevada Case (3:15-cv-00866(OR)):  On 2 Dec 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, issued her ‘Findings and Recommendations’ (Doc #51) on Cobbler NV, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales.   findingsrecom_00866or


Based the previous case activity (see DTD articles: Cut & Run  &  How NOT To Run A Case) it was assumed the court was going to award Defendant attorney fees and costs.

PREVAILING PARTY.  The court found that the Defendant was clearly the prevailing party under “any” analysis of the case.

The Court’s finding that Gonzales prevailed on the contributory infringement claim should end the analysis, as Gonzales is seeking attorney’s fees only in connection with his defense of that claim. However, even if the Court must adjudge the prevailing party based on the relative success of both the direct and contributory infringement claims, the Court finds that Gonzales is the prevailing party under any analysis.

REASONABLENESS.  As to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s claim, the court found the initially “reasonableness”, did not extend very far once the case details became clear.

The Court finds that once Plaintiff learned that the alleged infringement was taking place at an adult group care home at which Gonzales did not reside, Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of Gonzales for copyright infringement was objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff’s discovery that Gonzales was not the infringer came before Gonzales accrued the fees submitted for approval, and therefore the requested fees relate to a time period during which Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of Gonzales was objectively unreasonable.

MONEY.  As to Plaintiff’s motivation for filing these cases, the court clearly had concerns that this was a business model based on greed and lacked any “meaningful” investigation.

Although Plaintiff urges the Court to believe that “money has never been the goal” of this action, this Plaintiff and similarly-situated plaintiffs continue to demand large sums of money from individuals to settle these BitTorrent copyright claims. Many individuals agree to pay these large sums without the benefit of legal counsel. See Anonymous Users of Popcorn Time, 2016 WL 4238639, at *4. The Court shares Gonzales’ concern that Plaintiff is motivated, at least in large part, by extracting large settlements from individual consumers prior to any meaningful litigation. On balance, the Court has concerns about the motivation behind Plaintiff’s overaggressive litigation of this case and other cases, and that factor weighs in favor of fee shifting.

OVERLY AGGRESSIVE LITIGATION TACTICS.  Based on these findings, the court concluded:

Plaintiff’s claims against Gonzales were objectively unreasonable, and the Court has concerns about Plaintiff’s motivation in continuing to pursue those claims when it became clear that Gonzales was not responsible for the alleged infringement. To incent similarly-situated defendants to protect their rights under the Copyright Act, and to deter Plaintiff from overaggressive litigation tactics, the Court concludes that a fee award to Gonzales is appropriate.


For the reasons stated above, the district judge should enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Gonzales with prejudice, GRANT Gonzales’ request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,222.40, and GRANT Gonzales’ request for costs in the amount of $252.20.

JustStupid1Now Troll/Plaintiff has 14 days from this recommendation to object to this. If they are stupid enough to do this, it simply means the fee award against them is likely to go up when attorney David Madden has to respond to whatever laugable analysis/objections they file. Congratulations to Defendant Gonzales and attorney Madden – well done.

I certainly would have liked a larger fee award, but I’m happy for the analysis and the clear statement from the court that the Trolls are pursuing these weak-ass copyright infringement claims beyond the reasonableness level based on overly aggressive tactics.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂  If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against.”  {The Notebook of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein}   

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 Carl Crowell, Cobbler NV LLC and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to OR Court – BT Copyright Troll Tactics Overly Aggressive – Awards Defendant $17K In Fees (3:15-cv-00866)

  1. Pingback: Two breathtaking first-time precedents demonstrate that copyright troll lawsuits cannot withstand meaningful judicial scrutiny | Fight © Trolls

  2. that anonymous coward says:

    It is lovely to see the courts looking past the ‘because we said so’ “evidence” in these cases.
    It is always all about the money.
    They want to extract it, and if the court see’s the emperor is naked run away before having to pay up for harassing the accused.
    It is nice to see that the court didn’t grant the overly broad digging into the targets life, where a lack of evidence is spun into proof of wrongdoing.
    I hope they are dumb enough to appeal this, their egos can’t handle a court calling them out.
    One would love to see them walk into the trap of having to actually explain how they got to court on the ‘strength’ of a millisecond, no investigation beyond naming a subscriber, & inventing a cause of action that only exists in their imaginations.
    I’m sure the court would love a closer look at the evidence & the tap dancing trying to explain how non-existent corporations & people were just a booboo.

  3. Pingback: Court: Falsely Accused 'Movie Pirate' Deserves $17K Compensation - TorrentFreak

  4. Pingback: Court: ‘Falsely’ Accused ‘Movie Pirate’ Deserves $17K Compensation - Newspaper and News TV

  5. Pingback: Court: ‘Falsely’ Accused ‘Movie Pirate’ Deserves $17K Compensation | InternetNews.Space

  6. Pingback: Court: ‘Falsely’ Accused ‘Movie Pirate’ Deserves $17K Compensation | Crypto Cabaret

  7. Pingback: BT Copyright Troll Calls Magistrate Judge “Erratic” – Objection To Findings & Recommendations (3:15-cv-00866) | 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