Team Prenda Smacked Around Again, Ordered To Pay Another $94,000
from the punching-bags dept
It appears that the courts are now just piling on when it comes to Prenda Law. In the case of Lightspeed v. Anthony Smith, the court that was one of the first to call out team Prenda for "flat-out lies" and then blasted their weak attempt to plead poverty -- leading, instead, to holding Team Prenda in contempt -- has struck again. Having lost badly on appeal, the district court slammed the lawyers again, arguing that Team Prenda lied to the court and obstructed the discovery process concerning where they hid their money. It ordered sanctions of $65,263 and asked Smith's lawyers at Booth Sweet to submit their costs to be added on to the total. Those costs came out to $94,343.51 -- and Prenda lawyers John Steele and Paul Duffy complained that the number was unfair.Not surprisingly, the court is not buying what Steele and Duffy are selling:
Steele objects to the submitted expenses.... Steele’s objections are not well taken. As is customary for Steele, his objections minimize his misconduct and distort the facts of the case. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court finds that all of the submitted expenses are reasonable and recoverable. The Court awards sanctions against Steele and Duffy in the amount of $94,343.51, apportioned equally between Steele and Duffy. The sanctions shall be paid on or before August 10, 2015.Note that this filing came out on August 10th. So the judge, David Herndon, basically said pay up now.
This litigation has been entirely frivolous. Moreover, Lightspeed’s counsel’s falsehoods and obstructionist tactics have created significant costs for Smith. The Court agrees that the submitted expenses, costs and fees are eminently reasonable given the history of this litigation and the more than a year Smith spent defending against obstructionist tactics and engaging in extensive discovery to obtain proof of Duffy and Steele’s misconduct.Of course, with more and more of these types of rulings piling up, it still raises questions as to how the lawyers of Team Prenda are still allowed to practice law -- with both Steele and Paul Hansmeier having moved on to a very similar scam in shaking down small businesses over seemingly trivial ADA violations.
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: anthony smith, contempt of court, david herndon, john steele, paul duffy
Companies: lightspeed, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There is a perfectly obvious explanation for their behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... and?
Now, as funny as it would be to see them have their property repossessed and sold off to pay off their outstanding debts, until something like that happens it really doesn't matter how high the sanctions are, because they don't actually have to pay any of it, and they know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A lawyer can rape a minor who is a client, a lawyer can lie to the court about it.
However, woe be the lawyer who co-mingles funds or messes with the trust account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ... and?
Until they pay up, they aren't allowed to represent anyone, even themselves.
I think that would do the trick, and work around the disbarment issues (nobody wants to be the one to disbar a lawyer; it sets too many "bad" precedents).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a perfect world...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
American Greed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
While Steele was whining how he couldn't pay, he somehow managed to have the funds to add a pool, spa and deck to his Miami area home.
Funny how someone who couldn't afford to pay up could afford to do a renovation like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ... and?
http://business.time.com/2011/06/06/homeowner-forecloses-on-bank-of-america-yes-you-heard-that- right/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No -- They Are Facing CONTEMPT
They have run out of appeals unless they want to try a long-shot to the U.S. Supreme Court (ROTFL!).
I think it's clear this Judge means business. They have until the day the Order was entered to pay. Not 30-days, not even 10-days. Until the close of business the day it was signed or they are in contempt (again). If that doesn't scream PAY IMMEDIATELY they are fools to get brought back before that Judge!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More lawsuits imminent
Expect more lawsuits on who has to pay that half a cent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
However, I do agree that fining them is pretty much pointless, because as I pointed out above, they have no reason to pay. They can ignore financial sanctions as much as they care to and suffer absolutely no penalty from doing so, so tacking on more is just a waste of time.
No, if judges want to really punish them, hit it where it hurts: Their ability to continue with their scams. Issue rulings that lay out, clearly and concisely, just what they are doing so anytime they try and drag some poor sod to court, any judge looking into the matter will know exactly the sort of tricks they'll try and use.
Refer them to the various state Bar organizations for their courtroom 'shenanigans' like lying and falsifying records. That may not do much, but if enough judges in enough states do it the Bar associations might start considering cutting them lose just to save face.
Probably potentially most effective, set time limits on the sanctions. Give them a set amount, maybe 6 months, maybe a year, to pay out, otherwise the ones the sanctions are meant to repay are allowed to take it to court again and have property repossessed to make up the difference. Pay in money, or pay in goods, make them pay regardless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: American Greed...
Might be better on Comedy Central Roast or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They do have money, they pretty much boasted about it to the anti-troll groups. Now it's time for them to pay the piper.
More than anything else, it serves as an example to the trolls, extortionists and other criminal arms of the copyright maximalists: "Pick the wrong victim and it might be YOU getting shafted."
When the RIAA started this extortion scheme, they wanted to make an example of the filesharers they lied about.
Well, now it's time for the good guys to make an example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Heck, look how deep El Chapo ran. With paid off judges and a network deep enough to instil fear in people as high as the wealthiest presidential candidates and other very prominent people what this briefly made more publicly apparent is that there is an entire underworld of deeply embedded undemocratic influence behind many important political and judicial decisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Embarrassment for Someone
Every town used to have a town drunk until enough was enough. Now every town has about a thousand town drunks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He's dead, Jim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He's dead, Jim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He's dead, Jim.
Had to be said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More lawsuits imminent
[ link to this | view in thread ]