Prenda Tries To Weasel Out Of Case It Just Lost At The Appeals Court
from the run-away,-run-away dept
Remember last week when the DC Circuit appeals court overturned one of Prenda's few "wins" on the question of "joinder" (lumping together a bunch of unrelated people in a single lawsuit)? That was the case where a former RIAA lobbyist-turned-judge, Beryl Howell, was one of a very few judges who found such joinder appropriate. The appeals court disagreed and sent it back. And... in response, Prenda (in the form of Paul Duffy) are now trying to scamper away, by filing to voluntarily dismiss the case. This is pretty typical in the Prenda playbook. Whenever things start to look problematic, they try to dismiss the case and get away unscathed. Most of the cases where various attorneys' fees are being lumped on them involve similar cases where Prenda tried to run away, and was not allowed to do so. Some of the plaintiffs in this case may pursue fees, though with the previous awards piling up, it's unlikely they'd get much at this point. Either way, it's clear that after the appeal went against Prenda, it doesn't even want to try again at the district level.
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: beryl howell, dc circuit, joinder, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But if memory serves, IPs from these case were identified and spawned other cases in other districts.
Some of those were answered, so one wonders if they can still slink away into the night after getting information improperly and making use of it.
I think it is telling that it is without prejudice, keeping the door open that they might still go after those they did get information on.
It would be interesting to see if any courts would be interested to see how much data Prenda took in was used outside of the court system, mostly just to highlight the abuse of the process that ran wild for so long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"without" prejudice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I kinda hope the court forces them to keep pursuing the case to its bitter, not-good-for-Prenda end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or am I missing some strange procedural structure that the USA has and no where else?
Personally I'd like to see the specify involuntary dismissal WITH prejudice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I want to play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A letter to Prenda
TV Tropes is not a website for guiding your life to optimum efficiency.
Also in Real Life the Attack! Attack... Retreat! Retreat! trope( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AttackAttackRetreatRetreat ) usually does not allow for the retreat part to work out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The farce continues. Gooooooo USA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "without" prejudice?
That disclaimer out of the way, I suspect you'll find that dismissing 'without prejudice' is a tactical move, on the basis that (at least according to my layman's understanding) a dismissal 'with prejudice' would make the dismissal dispositive (meaning the case goes away completely at this point) with prenda substantially on the losing side and thus (possibly - courts seem reluctant to award in these types of cases) liable for fees, expenses, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Judge Howell had ruled that all of the targeted Does had no standing what so ever, and that she would not consider her lack of personal jurisdiction at this point in the case.
So she made rulings affecting persons she had no authority over, refused to consider she lacked the jurisdiction, and then recited from the bench how she though the law SHOULD be rather than how it was.
She felt so sure of herself that she allowed them to appeal right away... and the appeals court had a field day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "without" prejudice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not a motion. The judge doesn't need to do anything. The recommendation from the appeals court to consider sanctions is not binding. She can just close the docket and take no further action.
The dismissal without prejudice is certainly tactical, to avoid paying costs. But it's defensible as nothing was decided except for lack of jurisdiction. It's very unlikely that the case will be refiled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "without" prejudice?
Judge Howell rolls by her own rulebook and has given them everything they ever wanted at every step of the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is just 1 cog in a much larger, very broken system. Until the public makes enough noise to get laws changed, we will get more of the same. We also might want to find a better poster child...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
By now it's well known that the Prenda caper was a massive nationwide extortion scheme based on fraud and deception. There was a time in this country's history when such thieving scoundrels could expect to find themselves hanging by a rope from the nearest tree -- swiftly and resolutely. John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy are in essence no different from horse thieves in the Old West, and they rightly deserve to be treated as such. Though sadly, the days of 'frontier justice' in this country are long gone.
It's a shame to see a bunch of crooked lawyers that (as usual) continue to go about exploiting all the loopholes in the system, dragging it out and burdening everyone with expensive legal costs -- and even many months later, are neither in jail nor on trial. It seems incredible that someone can swindle the public out of millions of dollars, yet remain scot-free for so long. But that's our modern lawyer-created-and-run "justice" system for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
/sarcasm
Sadly there are still people out there who do not grasp what actually went on in all of this, staying secure in the delusion that lawyers are all upstanding people, and the system would NEVER let this move forward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The fact that Judge Beryl A. Howell initial order allowing Prenda to proceed to victimize a thousand internet subscribers was a travesty to begin with.
Judge Beryl A. Howell was a former RIAA Lobbyist who when hearing this case couldn't separate her past beliefs to make a order that was fair and impartial and based in law and not her personally beliefs which was contrary to the oath she took as a judge.
Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy are trying to weasel out of this case before they get saddled with costs. The Only way they get out of this is if Judge Beryl A. Howell allows them to do it.
If that happens it will be a sign that Judge Beryl A. Howell still can not separate her former profession from the position she holds as a Judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's like a video game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's like a video game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]