Prenda Hit With $12,000 In Sanctions Over Its Bogus Defamation Suit
from the Assclown-Law-racks-up-another-debit dept
The spectacular Prenda flameout continues. As was reported here back in January, US District Judge John Darrah approved Paul Godfread and Alan Cooper's request for sanctions at the tail end of Prenda's disastrous defamation suit (one John Steele himself did plenty to undermine). Now, we have a dollar amount. (via Ars Technica)Today, Judge Darrah in the Northern District of Illinois granted yet another sanctions award against copyright troll Prenda Law. Paul Godfread and Alan Cooper have been awarded $11,758.20 as reimbursement for a portion of the fees they have spent on attorneys in defending themselves against Prenda’s defamation lawsuit.This will be added to the half-million in (mostly uncollected) sanctions levied against Prenda since the beginning of last year. Prenda tried to argue that the hourly fee requested was ridiculously high.
The Court awarded the sanctions under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as well as its inherent power to sanction provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In the Court’s own words, the sanctions award was “[b]ased on Prenda’s misrepresentations in this Court” and the Defendants’ incurred fees were “occasioned by the misconduct of Prenda Law and Paul A. Duffy in this Court.”
According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2013 Report of the Economic Survey, intellectual property attorneys based in Chicago and Boston within the first quartile bill $400 per hour, in line with the amount billed by Defendants’ counsel, who are based in Chicago and Boston. (Dkt. No. 61, Ex. B.) Yet, Prenda argues that this rate is “exorbitant” because Defendants’ attorney Erin Russell is not registered before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and, therefore, not an intellectual property attorney."Apropos of what," Judge Darrah doesn't even bother asking.
Prenda cites no law supporting this contention, and its claim of exorbitant rates fails.Prenda also argued that some of the fees incurred were "self-inflicted" and not the direct result of its bogus lawsuit/endless dicking around. Darrah dismantles this argument as well.
The basis of Prenda’s mitigation argument is that Defendants chose not to trust Prenda to withdraw its motion to remand. Defendants’ failure to trust Prenda was not unreasonable, given Prenda’s vigorous defense of its motion to remand on the same day it filed its motion to withdraw the motion. In any event, Defendants’ response to Prenda’s motion to remand was sufficiently quick and efficient. Not only did Defendants file their response within six days, they filed it on the same day that Prenda presented its motion to withdraw. Prenda’s opposition with respect to Defendants’ fees being self-inflicted or avoidable is denied.Prenda did manage to come out of this in slightly better shape than it could have. Darrah only awarded the attorney's fees racked up in his court, not including anything that occurred in a separate court in 2013. That decision cut the awarded amount roughly in half.
This appears to be the final moments for Prenda Law, a sordid episode of legal abuse that is ending with lots of (gavel) banging and (Prenda partner) whimpering.
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: alan cooper, defamation, john steele, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just another example at how far Duffy, Steele and Hansmeier will go to further their litigation.
Duffy intentionally lied to the Judge about what the other Judge who had this case before hand had ruled. This Judge caught Duffy in that intentional lie and thus he gets to hit with a $12k fine to pay.
Duffy is lucky the Judge didn't refer him to the Illinois state bar for this. Duffy has an oath as a Lawyer and an officer of the court to act with regard to the rules and conduct governing him as such.
Much like in Judge Wrights ruling and other Judges ruling's have show is that Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy will go to know end to perpetuate fraud upon the court and will to continue to abuse the court system to get a win for their side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and yet, mysteriously, kicked Prenda's a** in an IP case. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well - they should know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avoidable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is total BS. The judge is clearly a Google shill and has issued this ruling just to support a company that is funneling money his way. There has not been any misconduct by Prenda or Paul Duffy.
In fact, the misconduct has been by Paul Godfread who is misleading the court in this travesty of justice and enabling copyright infringement on a scale never seen before.
Not to mention, Alan Cooper, who created all of this in a brilliantly executed plan to embarrass Prenda and get free porn.
The unfortunate situation this has put Paul Duffy in personally is horrible and we should all stand up in support of him.
how was that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Prenda Hit With $12,000 In Sanctions Over Its Bogus Defamation Suit
It is not $12,000. It is $11,758.20. That is $241.80 off - more than 2% for those of you counting. I thought Mikey was into statistics. Really Mikey? You are going to throw out misleading numbers and then expect people to believe you when you are saying Hollywood's numbers are misleading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (michael)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not good enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not good enough
Even when they get 'punished', copyright trolls still make out like kings, because the courts aren't willing to actually do anything concrete about them, just a slap on the wrist here, and a 'Don't let me catch you doing that again' there.
And the Bar... well, they might as well not exists, given being a lawyer is apparently a permanent job, where once you're in, you can do whatever you want with impunity.
I'd say the only consolation is the potential that the IRS is sniffing about Prenda, which if true, it may take a few years to pan out, but when it does... oh the carnage should be glorious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]