Courts Start Demanding Actual Answers From Team Prenda

from the and-on-and-on dept

The saga of Team Prenda continues, as courts in two of the Prenda cases we've been following have shown that they're getting pretty tired with Team Prenda's attempts to dance around the issues. First up, we've got the various AF Holdings cases up in Minnesota. If you don't recall, these cases had been dismissed, but after the court learned about some of Team Prenda's antics, it reopened the case with an eye towards determining if Team Prenda was guilty of fraud on the court in coaxing settlements out of people on a faulty or illegal basis. Amusingly, late last week, Paul Hansmeier, sticking to Team Prenda's ridiculous strategy of "whenever we're completely backed into a corner, charge!" filed a notice claiming that AF Holdings intended to reopen the original cases. That is, he's now claiming that because magistrate judge Franklin Noel is investigating them for fraud in the original cases, they now want to continue to "sue" people for infringement to show how "legitimate" their cases really were. The notice is worth reading, mainly for the comedic value. Hansmeier claims that Alan Cooper is mentally unstable and was trying to extort money from John Steele. Also, that there was no forgery of Cooper's signature, but rather Cooper "repudiating" his association with AF Holdings.

Of course, the main reason for making this filing isn't to reopen the cases, or to make laughable claims about Alan Cooper, but rather this:

However, Plaintiff has reached the outer-limits of what it can learn without the coercive power of formal discovery. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to issue an order scheduling a Rule 26(f) conference so it resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Basically, it's Paul Hansmeier asking the court for a fishing expedition against Cooper and his lawyer Paul Godfread. It's hard to see this as anything more than an attempt to be a nuisance.

However, it seems highly unlikely that magistrate judge Noel is buying anything that Hansmeier is selling. Instead, his latest order shows that he's getting pretty damn tired of Team Prenda's runaround. It makes no mention of Hansmeier's filing, denies the local counsel Michael Dugas' request to be dropped from the case (noting that he signed the forged papers), repeats the findings of Judge Wright in California, and then orders AF Holdings/Team Prenda to explain why Judge Wright's findings shouldn't apply equally to these cases:

The plaintiff shall file a memorandum of law on or before August 26, 2013 showing cause as to why Judge Wright's factual findings are not binding against it in these cases under the common law doctrine of issue preclusion. See, e.g., Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 1997) (issue preclusion appropriate under Minnesota law if (1) the issues are identical; (2) the prior adjudication ended with a final judgment on the merits; (3) the plaintiff was a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue).

The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect that Mr. Michael K. Dugas remains counsel of record for the plaintiff. Although he filed a notice of withdrawal and substitution, his withdrawal was not effective upon filing under Local Rule 83.7(b) because it would delay the progress of this case. He signed the complaint to which the forged documents were attached. If Mr. Dugas wishes to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff, he must proceed in accordance with Local Rule 83.7(c) and establish good cause to do so.

In other words, Team Prenda's can't just ignore Judge Wright's ruling here, and it certainly sounds like Judge Noel has no time for Hansmeier's plans to play discovery games.

Meanwhile, back in the Navasca case in Northern California, it appears that the recent sanctions against Team Prenda that Judge Edward Chen awarded have been ignored by Team Prenda, and a magistrate judge in that court, Nador Vadas, would like to know why. Oh, that's not all Judge Vadas would like to know. It appears that Judge Vadas is now taking a special interest in the now-infamous Paul Hansmeier deposition from this case, which was one of the key documents that convinced Judge Wright that Prenda was up to no good. Judge Vadas has some questions he'd like AF Holdings to answer, and they are the kinds of questions that Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, John Steele and Mark Lutz probably don't want to answer about who actually is behind AF Holdings and the various "trusts" such as Salt Marsh:

Hansmeier testified that AF Holdings was owned by a trust, but he could not testify about the name of the trust.... In a May 2, 2013 filing, Mark Lutz, who identifies himself as someone who “manage[s] various adult content related companies, including AF Holdings LLC,” declared that “Salt Marsh is the name of the trust that owns AF Holdings”.... At the hearing, AF Holdings should be prepared to identify the name of its owner and any entity or person having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, beyond Salt Marsh.

AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why it represented that there were “no known persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities (other than the parties themselves) that may have personal or affiliated financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding other than the parties.” Doc. No. 2 (Certificate of Interested Entities).

AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why Paul Hansmeier was designated as its 30(b)(6) deponent instead of Mark Lutz.

Paul Hansmeier was unable to testify about “the exact mechanisms by which the money goes from” to AF Holdings from the law firms that represent it.... AF Holdings should be prepared to explain these “exact mechanisms” at the hearing, and also should be prepared to provide an accounting of the funds it has received from persons it has sued or threatened to sue for copyright violation based on allegedly illegal downloading of its adult titles.

Those all seem like important questions. Questions that would be easy to answer if there were nothing nefarious going on, but which Team Prenda has avoided answering in any meaningful way for months. The hearing at which they need to have such answers ready will be on August 28th. I imagine it will be quite interesting.

Filed Under: alan cooper, franklin noel, joe navasca, john steele, mark lutz, michael dugas, nador vadas, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda May Be In Even More Trouble In Reopened Case

from the and-out-come-the-tricks dept

It would appear that more and more courts are coming to the full realization of the kinds of tricks it appears Team Prenda has been pulling over the past few years, and that means that the troubles for Team Prenda may be quickly adding up. The latest is that an old AF Holdings case in Minnesota, which had been voluntarily dismissed all the way back in October, was magically reopened back in June, as we discussed at the time. One of the interesting things we noted, was that the magistrate judge handling the case, Franklin Noel, demanded info on any settlements that Team Prenda received.

We hadn't checked in since then, but Team Prenda has been scrambling since then -- and a hearing is happening today -- on the matter. The local attorney who had handled the original case, Michael Dugas, tried to get out of it, and hand the case over to Paul Hansmeier, with Dugas claiming that he "no longer represents" AF Holdings, but Noel wasn't going to hear that. After all, he's investigating possible fraud from the time when Dugas was on the case. So, Noel sent a simple shut up and show up response to Dugas denying his request with no explanation very quickly.

Paul Duffy also raised various objections and then tried to delay the hearing -- but Noel more or less rejected that, pointing out that Duffy in his various roles seems confused about what's going on here and what role he's supposed to be playing. That is, Duffy raised objections "pro se" -- basically as an individual representing himself -- but Noel points out that Duffy isn't actually a party to the lawsuit, Prenda Law is, and a company can't represent itself pro se. Here's Noel:

Paul Duffy filed a pro se objection to the order scheduling the case-management conferences. But the Court did not order Duffy to appear. Although Duffy purports to be “the sole principle [sic] of Prenda Law, Inc.,” he has not entered an appearance on behalf of the corporation. A corporation cannot appear pro se; it must be represented by counsel.... Duffy is an attorney, but he has not been admitted to practice before this Court. He has not sought to be admitted pro hac vice or by special permission of the court...

Given all this, he completely dumps Duffy's pro se objections, striking them from the record, orders Duffy to show up anyway (by phone) as a representative of Prenda, and (of course) denies the attempt to postpone things.

And, finally, on Friday, Paul Hansmeier sent a letter rather than a formal filing to Judge Noel (officially coming from Hansmeier's sketchy class action lawsuit objection operation, "Class Justice"), flat-out whining about a letter that another lawyer had sent to the judge, highlighting many of Team Prenda's more questionable activities. There's a funny part in which Hansmeier -- who Judge Wright and others have clearly noted were part of the Team Prenda efforts -- complains that "Prenda" is entirely different and it's unfair to lump them together.

However, he does note that (as per the original order), the judge has been given all of the settlement communications between the various John Does -- and even suggests that the court should unseal them to show that the "'shakedown' narrative is a canard." And says that other courts "would benefit from learning how disingenuous the 'shakedown' narrative truly is." Of course, he doesn't mention anything about Alan Cooper or who actually signed the documents. And since that's a big part of this.... Either way, we'll see if Judge Noel agrees with Hansmeier soon -- but his actions to date certainly suggest that he's seen enough to recognize that something very, very questionable happened via his court.

Filed Under: alan cooper, franklin noel, john steele, paul duffy, paul godfried, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Another Judge Figures Out What Prenda Is Up To, Reopens Closed Case, Demands Information On Settlements

from the well,-look-at-that dept

It would appear that yet another federal judge has taken an interest in what Prenda Law was up to for the past few years. Over in Minnesota, US Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel has reopened a case that Prenda had dismissed and ordered Prenda's local counsel, Michael Dugas, to supply an awful lot of information about the settlements they collected from people during the shakedown. The court points out:

In light of Mr.Cooper's letter and Judge Wright's order, it appears to the Court that the plaintiff has relied on forged documents in securing multiple court orders authorizing the discovery of information that, in turn, led to settlements in the above-captioned cases.

Because of that, it's reopening the case:

The Court agrees with the reasoning of Pino and concludes--based on its own interpretation of Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(d)(3)--that it has jurisdiction to strike a plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, reopen the case, and award appropriate relief when allegations of a possible fraud on the court come to its attention. This interpretation of Rule 60 is necessary to preserve the integrity the of judicial system.

All three elements of the Pino test are met here: (1) the plaintiff attached a fraudulent document to the complaint; (2) the Court relied upon that document in authorizing the discovery of internet subscriber information--information the plaintiff was not entitled to receive absent a court order; and (3) after obtaining the discovery (which--at least as far as the Court is aware--is the only relief the plaintiff ever seeks in these cases), the plaintiff settled and voluntarily dismissed all of these cases.

Given that, the court has ordered Dugas to supply the details of everyone in the case who settled, including their contact info, their attorneys' contact info, the exact terms of the settlement agreements, "including to whom any money was paid and the manner of payment" while also saying that Dugas needs to supply all of those who settled (and their attorneys) with Judge Wright's order in California describing Prenda's scheme. Given the identifying info, this will be filed under seal, but Dugas has only five days to do so. Either way, it seems that more and more judges are aware of what happened, and they're even going back into old cases to explore...

Filed Under: alan cooper, franklin noel, michael dugas, minnesota, otis wright, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law