Sanctions Sought Against Righthaven's Lawyers For Not Dismissing Remaining Cases
from the make-it-stop dept
In its continuing effort to put the final nail in the coffin of Righthaven, the Randazza Legal Group has now filed for sanctions against Righthaven's lawyers. The filing argues that, given the multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions slamming Righthaven's legal strategy and specifically ruling that Righthaven has no standing to sue, while also questioning if there even is any infringement here at all, Righthaven has a duty to dismiss its remaining cases:Righthaven’s scheme has been rejected nationwide. Within this District, Courts had ruled four times that Righthaven did not have standing to sue its defendants – and that its amendments to the SAA made after filing suit were ineffective – just between June 14 and June 23, 2011.4 To the extent any legitimate question of law existed about Righthaven’s standing to sue in the first place, considering this Circuit’s precedent in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Corp., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), and Sybersound Records, Incorporated v. UAV Corporation, 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), that doubt should have been resolved in June upon Righthaven’s fourth adverse ruling on standing. Yet, only days away from Halloween, the Defendants in this action continue to bear the costs of litigation establishing Righthaven’s lack of standing. This District has conclusively settled this exact issue, and Righthaven’s consistent argument to the contrary can no longer be advanced in good faith. Righthaven and its Counsel have a duty to dismiss this case, and not to waste the Court’s time or the Defendant’s time and resources in making the exact same arguments, which have been rejected again, and again, and again, and again.The filing notes that continuing with these other lawsuits isn't just a waste of everyone's time, but reaches the level of vexatious litigation, by pursuing such cases in obvious bad faith. In the case at hand, involving a site called NewsBlaze, Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, has been trying to argue that, since its original motion to dismiss didn't bring up the standing issue, it can't be added later. It appears that Righthaven is also trying to re-argue the standing issue to some extent, though as this filing notes, that's settled law in this court:
Righthaven is precluded from further arguing that it has standing to bring this action under the SAA, and that its amendments executed after filing suit are effective, by the doctrine of issue preclusion – formerly known as collateral estoppel. When an issue has been fully and actually litigated, as these issues have been ad nauseam in this District, a party is barred from relitigating the issue.Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?
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, sanctions, vexatious litigation
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
All those with me signify agreement by NOT commenting! *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
Toodles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
These stories always give me a small, though very small, glimmer of hope for our
Justice system... and it always makes me smile to see a copyright troll get smacked around:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
If Mike doesn't make a comment I think ootb might just jizz himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
I still wonder if someone didn't create Righthaven just to fail and demonstrate how bad a copyright troll can be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
Or, better, how bad copyright LAW is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't end
I just hope that the innocent defendants in these cases become whole again by having their legal defense bills paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't end
Actually, the only way that's going to happen, and the affected see any money, is if Stephens Media is brought into the case and made responsible.
Again I say, if Stephens or any other third-party participant to the "agreements" can be proven to have received disbursements from Righthaven, they can be legally attached to the case and made responsible. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lol - wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"crippled this business model for anyone else"
lol - wut?
*rubs eyes again*
"crippled this business model for anyone else"
/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guest spot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RightHaven in General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers and ethics? Ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahhahahhaha cough cough cough, sorry i think I just laughed up a lung.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]