Randazza Seeking Sanctions Against Righthaven Lawyer For Going Through Charade Yet Again
from the again? dept
Two bits of Righthaven news here. Last week, we wrote about the company losing yet again and being told to pay legal fees, yet again. We noted that the minutes from the court had mentioned that Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, had been scolded by the judge. Well, now the full transcript of the hearing is out, and it's worth the read (embedded below). Basically, the whole hearing was totally unnecessary, and was in part due to Mangano's failure to file the necessary documents on time (over which he appears to be confused). Either way, the whole hearing was pointless, and it's pretty clear that the judge is fed up and upset that such a hearing had to even be held in the first place. It sounds like the only reason sanctions weren't issued against Mangano is that the judge is not a fan of sanctioning attorneys at all, but suggests he came close in this case:Well, I quite frankly think, Mr. Mangano, that you could have handled this a lot better if you would have placed yourself in the position of somebody other than yourself by looking at it and seeing what hoops you were making opposing counsel jump through that are totally unnecessary.While Mangano may have personally dodged a bullet in Colorado, that doesn't mean he gets to avoid similar problems back in Nevada. There, the Randazza Legal Group (who was also involved in the case above, and many, many other Righthaven cases) has filed for direct sanctions against Mangano, in yet another Righthaven case, noting that Righthaven has lost on standing so many times, that it's vexatious litigation to move forward with another lawsuit:
I have an extraordinary dislike for assessing attorneys' fees against attorneys, and I am not going to assess them against you under 1927. But I can tell you right now that I am right on the cusp of doing that.
I think you could have been a lot more civil and a lot more understanding about this. And I don't like to impose sanctions against attorneys, because I think it lives with them for a long time.
What happens to your client is another matter, and I am really not concerned with that. But I am telling you right now, you've got more stuff to do in this Court, and you better start thinking in terms of civility if you don't want me to jump on you with both feet.
The fact is that after Mr. Mangano and his client lost the exact same argument eight times, Mangano still persisted in forcing this defendant to litigate the same issue a ninth time. It is the Defendants' position that perhaps the first time that Mangano signed pleadings in direct contravention with the 9th Circuit�s holding in Silvers, it could have been a forgivable attempt. The same may have been true for the second and third times, with declining defensibility. When it came to being told eight times that he brought an unsupportable claim before the court, Mr. Mangano under a clear obligation to exercise some degree of client control; to refuse to bring the exact same arguments; or to dismiss a case with an inescapable outcome, such as this one, rather than to force a defendant to litigate the same exact issue a ninth time on grounds identical to the previous eight defeats. Forcing this issue nine times had no effect except to punitively impose litigation expenses on this Defendant. This Defendant deserves to be made whole for the expenses incurred due to that misconduct.I would imagine that it can't be much fun to be a Righthaven lawyer at this point in time.
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, shawn mangano, vexatious litigation
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One day someone needs to place them all in one volume and include it in every class on how to write legal briefs ;)
On another note: Could Mangano loose his immunity, not just court sanctions, if it can be shown this alleged misconduct is egregious enough under US civil torts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ned Flanders cursing
It's just that his cursings were more like "Oh, fiddely diddely!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
holy shit
Lawyers are sacred, and clients are shit?
That was a very disturbing thing to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: holy shit
People complain about lawyers but I firmly believe the root cause of the problems in the legal system is the judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: holy shit
"People complain about lawyers but I firmly believe the root cause of the problems in the legal system (starts with) the judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: holy shit
Which reminds me: Why don't snakes bite attorneys?
Professional courtesy.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: holy shit
There is however a limit to this assumption - and in this case we seem to have almost reached it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminals
There are only two true criminal classes in the world, lawyers and politicians, and they're in cahoots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either that, or you're just another anti-Mike troll who didn't get the memo in time to be at the top of the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now that RH has been excoriated, they give us the "does any one care" routine. Total worthless windbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Oh, is that copyright infringement?)
I find the Righthaven cases to be extremely funny to the point of laughing out loud. It is one of the greatest comedy acts since SCO vs World+Dog or various Jack Thompson.
And you would want to deprive us of such free amusement?
Oh, nevermind. You probably think we should have to pay to watch a great comedy act, acted out in our courts, in public, with all of the court documents being public.
In answer to your question: yes, people other than Mike care about Righthaven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was kind of sad when it seemed Righthaven might win these extortion shakedown lawsuits against bloggers.
Now it's not only kind of happy, it's downright hilarious to watch Righthaven get smacked down again, and again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
That is dangerously close to 'protect your own and screw the rest'. The Judge is only saying that his actions are so close to the edge that even the Old Boys Club can't protect him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
To Quote the Wikipedia article
"A self-employed barrister must comply with the �Cab-rank rule� and accordingly except only as otherwise provided in paragraphs 603 604 605 and 606 he must in any field in which he professes to practise in relation to work appropriate to his experience and seniority and irrespective of whether his client is paying privately or is publicly funded:
(a) accept any brief to appear before a Court in which he professes to practise;
(b) accept any instructions;
(c) act for any person on whose behalf he is instructed;
and do so irrespective of (i) the party on whose behalf he is instructed (ii) the nature of the case and (iii) any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the character reputation cause conduct guilt or innocence of that person"
Therefore judges are reluctant to reprimand lawyers because the result would be that lawyers would be unwilling to take unpopular cases and hence - somewhere down the line - an innocent person would be denied justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
Making your client's case is not acting badly.
No matter who your client is. Even if they are as evil as SCO or Microsoft.
Where lawyers should be punished is when they go outside of those well established rules. Vexatious litigation. Unnecessarily increasing the cost of litigation to other parties. Not being truthful before the court. Not acting respectfully to the court and other parties and their lawyers at all times. (No matter how nasty the dispute between the parties.)
When lawyers go outside these bounds, they should be sanctioned.
And it SHOULD live with them a long time. Isn't that the point?
Mom says: Oh, billy, you stole that candy bar from the store? As a punishment I'm going to frown harshly at you for five seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
I think the problem here is that we have lawyers who are actually interested parties - they effectively work for Righthaven. I feel that in these cases the leniency usually allowed for lawyers is inappropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical..
Maybe the judges need the support of the crappy attorneys for some reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]