Another Day, And Another Smackdown For Righthaven: Told To Pay Up For Misleading The Court
from the on-the-ropes dept
Yes, another day and another judicial smackdown for Righthaven. In the case before Judge Roger Hunt, where he dismissed Righthaven for its sham copyright assignment claims and threatened sanctions against the company, it appears that Judge Hunt was not convinced by Righthaven's grovelling, that it was all the fault of former in-house attorneys, who failed to disclose that Stephens Media had a 50% stake in the outcome of any of these lawsuits.Hunt has gone forward with the sanctions, telling Righthaven to pay $5,000 for misleading the court. It seems that defendants in the 200+ other lawsuits now have reasons to ask for similar sanctions against Righthaven as well. In fact, part of this ruling was to get this information attached to every other Righthaven case:
Besides the $5,000, Hunt ordered Righthaven to disclose its original lawsuit contract with Stephens Media in active lawsuits over R-J material. He also ordered that a transcript of today’s hearing, in which he made several negative comments about Righthaven’s conduct, be posted on Righthaven court dockets.Separately, Judge Hunt publicly bolstered the chances of the attempts to file racketeering charges against Righthaven, under the theory that the company was involved in the unauthorized practice of law:
“In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company.”The judge also blasted the arguement from Righthaven that forgetting to disclose Stephens' Media's interest in the cases was a mere oversight, by specifically calling out Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson:
Hunt noted it was Righthaven’s CEO, Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, who drew up the lawsuit contract between Righthaven and Stephens Media. Defense attorneys have said it was Gibson who signed off on some of the false disclosures and that Gibson is behind the entire Righthaven litigation campaign.I wonder if Steve Gibson is still trying to peddle his line about how the judges think that Righthaven is "genuine," and that all these rulings are really about giving guidance to Righthaven copycats.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, misrepresentation, nevada, roger hunt
Companies: righthaven, stephens media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little dissapointing.
If I, as an individual, had done what Gibson did, I might well be in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media Conspiracy
It is shocking to me this is not getting more coverage in the press. You have two major newspaper conglomerates that have been implicated in illegal dealings with Righthaven. This should be as big as a scandal as the Murdock hacking scandal but the main stream media is ignoring it. I suspect the news media is protecting its own and will have to be brought in kicking and screaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Conspiracy
In the end most of the resources and bandwidth at this particular moment are being used up by another, larger, juicier and more entertaining News Corp scandal..
The Righthaven debacle is still a pretty boring thing to most people... only those of us that follow IP/Copyright closely are engaged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But of course.
If he thought about it any differently he would have been wrong from the beginning which obviously is not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are not even a lawfirm however they have set up a contingency fee arrangement with their media partners which amounts to an unauthorized practice of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait...
I mean if they're right that the sale for just the lawsuit rights can be valid, then they can't be subject to sanctions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But wait...
Might have some Rule 11 problems, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
Perhaps a civil RICO action may be the only viable option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
So that confirms that the invitation by the Court is for a declaratory judgment. I don't see how there's no injury though. Since the petitioners were the target of this purported UPL, wouldn't they be injured since they had to defend the illegal suit and that costs money?
It appears there is no private right of action in Nevada: Jordan v. State ex rel. Dept. of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 73-74 (2005).
So I guess the claim has to be brought by the state bar or something like that. It seems to me that the UPL claim is just to get Righthaven to stop practicing law. Damages would come under some other theory, like a RICO action as you say. I don't really know though. I've only been reading about what constitutes UPL, not what it means if it is UPL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
I t's not exactly clear to me that Lowcountry wasn't injured somehow via Eiser. It probably doesn't matter though since damages don't appear to be available for UPL under the Court's invitation for only declaratory judgment actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
I read into that the possibility that the Nevada Supreme Court could recognize a private cause of action for UPL in the future. Perhaps Righthaven will be the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
I don't really know if they have an action against Mangano and Gibson personally, or just Righthaven. Good question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
In theory it is just against Righthaven. However, the SC case specifically requests a "piercing of the veil," i.e. the ability to hold the owners of Righthaven personally accountable (which would be Gibson and the Stephens Media financiers, though I don't think Magnano would be hit).
Judges have to grant this explicitly, from what I understand. They do so based on the theory that the individuals are responsible for the actions of the company; and that the business itself can't afford the damages and fees, so without the "veil piercing," the prevailing party wouldn't get relief. This seems to be the case here, so I would not be surprised if this was granted.
Of course, I got this from reading the Eiser filing, so who knows if it's accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But wait...
Especially since Mangano has an absolute duty (legally and ethically) as an officer of the court. This is something that most clients don't realise when dealing with lawyers, they have the duty to the client yes, but they also have to weigh that up with a duty to the court as well. Not sure what can occur to him at moment, or how much he is skirting on gray areas, [USA attorney rules are not my forte thankfully] but if I was him I would be getting my own counsel on obligations and how to CTOA (Cover Thyne Own Arse)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But wait...
So if the representation results in a violation of the law (like here where the representation results in UPL), then that lawyer must terminate the representation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
Reading through (and it's not the most readable html file *bleg*) 2 things jumped out at me as well.
AND lets not forget
As I said, My advise to Mr Mangano would be to seek external counsel ASAP and be prepared for a long and excruciating public audit of your role.
I actually feel for the guy, especially if he is being set up, as it seems, as a scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
Honestly though, I don't see how Righthaven can pursue its cases after Judge Hunt said this: "In the court's view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don't think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company." How in the world can Righthaven pursue their cases with this hanging over them? Gibson's got to be worried. I bet he and Mangano haven't slept well the past couple days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Sanctions"
http://ssrn.com/abstract=976478
"Many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question: is there a plausible result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession."
It's a good ol' boys and girls club, judges and lawyers together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it still is...
The guidance being, of course, don't be that fucking stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment will be far more than $5000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment will be far more than $5000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“That Which Does Not Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “That Which Does Not Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “That Which Does Not Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger”
"So, what you're saying is... I'm indestructable!"
"Oh no, no. In fact, even a slight breeze could..."
"Indestructable!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS Rides Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But . . .
Exactly the kind of advice they need: DON'T DO THIS !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse of Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]