Righthaven Copyrights 'Sold' Back To Stephens Media For $80k To Pay Legal Fees

from the is-this-finally-over-yet dept

Sure, sure, this year we've all moved on to the crazy stories about the Charles Carreons and Prenda Laws of the world, but let's not forget that last year there was just as much focus on Righthaven's copyright trolling operation collapsing after judges realized that it was all effectively a sham in which the real copyright holder (mainly newspaper publisher Stephens Media) had not really sold off its copyrights to Righthaven, meaning that Righthaven had no actual standing to sue. Technically, Stephens Media tried to give the copyright to Righthaven, but since it retained all of the listed rights under copyright law, it was clearly not an actual transfer. In one of those cases, concerning a guy named Wayne Hoehn, who fought back against a Righthaven lawsuit filed against him, Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza fought for and won a request for legal fees. Righthaven stalled and complained and bullied, but the court told Righthaven to pay up.

Eventually, since Righthaven refused to cough up any money, the court granted Randazza's request to put Righthaven into receivership. That eventually led to the "sale" of various Righthaven assets, including the Righthaven.com domain name, which sold for $3,300 to a hosting company that promised to resist bogus takedown notices.

In May of last year, we noted that the receiver was now planning to sell Righthaven's copyrights, since they were the only remaining "asset" from Righthaven. Of course, this seemed fairly tricky when you thought about it. The whole reason Righthaven lost the case was because it didn't actually hold any copyrights. But, of course, it claimed it did, so in some twisted way, you could maybe sort of possibly argue that what was being sold was the possible rights to those copyrights if Righthaven ever got through its appeal and won. But that seemed highly speculative, and we couldn't figure out who would want to buy such a thing, other than for the novelty of it all.

Except... as has now come out, Randazza (somewhat brilliantly) approached Stephens Media (who started this whole thing in the first place) and asked them if they wanted to buy the copyrights (which, the court's ruling in this exact case had said they actually still owned). I don't know exactly how the conversation went, but you can think through the implications fairly quickly.

Stephens Media, who set up Righthaven, and would have liked for an appeal to go forward showing that Righthaven owned the copyrights, even though it was still using the works and retained all the control. But, suddenly, if Randazza is offering them back the copyrights and they refuse, they're somewhat screwed. Because... first, it's something of an admission that they don't actually believe Righthaven had the copyrights in the first place, which is an admission they don't want to make. Second, if those copyrights are sold to someone else, that someone else could likely sue Stephens Media for still having those stories up without a license -- and then suddenly Stephens Media could find itself in court with the most convoluted copyright case imaginable, in which any argument Stephens makes hurts them elsewhere. It's mindbogglingly amazing. Stephens was effectively tied into a pretzel with any move that doesn't involve buying back the copyrights they "already own" potentially leading Stephens to an involved and problematic court case.

Oh yeah, and also I would imagine that getting money into the receivership that "satisfies" the court's awards probably would mean that Hoehn and Randazza don't then go after Stephens Media directly for the funds, considering how much they controlled Righthaven. As such, Stephens "buying" back those copyrights was probably seen as a strategically wise move.

And so... Stephens bought back its "own" copyrights for $80,000, which Randazza and Hoehn have agreed ends the matter, even though technically they were still owed much more.

Presently, the Righthaven Receivership Estate consists of $85,000. $80,000 of this was obtained from a private sale of Righthaven’s rights back to Stephens Media LLC, the creators of the works underlying many of Righthaven’s more than 275 lawsuits. While this was not obtained at auction, prior auctions for Righthaven’s rights failed, largely due to their indefinite nature. After searching for buyers in the face of the auction’s failure, Righthaven’s rights acquired from Stephens Media were sold back to their original source in a commercially reasonable manner, as no other market existed for them. As the Receiver in this limited receivership, I am satisfied that no other method of sale could have brought a higher price.

In the end, the money was distributed with $11,600 going to the two different people who acted as receivers in the case, $18,400 going to Wayne Hoehn who brought the case, and the remaining $55,000 going to Randazza Legal Group for all the legal fees accrued. While the money to Hoehn and Randazza was less than the court had initially ordered, given the lack of any actual assets from Righthaven, the fact that they were able to get this much, out of Stephens Media, no less, is pretty impressive.

Filed Under: marc randazza, receivorship, steve gibson, wayne hoehn
Companies: righthaven, stephens media

Former Righthaven CEO Fights Back; Claims As The Manager Of The Manager Of Righthaven He's Still In Power

from the popcorn dept

We recently wrote about how the receiver for Righthaven's assets, Lara Pearson, was surprised to learn that Righthaven founder and former CEO Steve Gibson had gone out and hired lawyers in an attempt to continue the appeals court cases concerning some of its district court losses on key issues. Given that Righthaven had gone into receivership, and Pearson had effectively taken control while auctioning off what few assets there were, this was a problem. Pearson made it clear to Gibson that he no longer had anything to do with Righthaven, alerted both the lawyers he had hired and the court of what Gibson had done, and hoped that Gibson would go away. No such luck: he's now filed an "objection to the receiver's notification terminating" his job. You can see the whole thing below.

He makes a few points. First, he again reiterates that Righthaven's key lawyer in many of these lawsuits, Shawn Mangano, had simply stopped responding to him back in February. He seems to want to blame the mess he's in on that. Separately, he argues that the receiver did not have the right to take over the company, and that she did not follow specific court rules. Also, he appears to be trying to reclaim ownership of Righthaven, though the argument is complex:

Even if the Receiver’s termination of me as CEO was somehow within her authority and done within the parameters of permitted procedure, the Receiver’s position that that somehow divests me of authority would be wrong. A limited liability company is ultimately governed by its members and the members have chosen Net Sortie Systems, LLC (“Net Sortie”) as its statutory manager. I am the manager of Net Sortie. While the manager manages the CEO, in the absence of a CEO, the manager would assume management of all affairs of Righthaven...

He seems particularly upset that Pearson went out and hired another lawyer -- one who fought against Righthaven -- to help deal with the ongoing appeal, which likely means an effort to get the case closed as quickly and simply as possible. Gibson claims that it's his right to make such hires, despite the dismissal from his job that appears to indicate otherwise. He also keeps suggesting that there's a public interest in having the case heard at the appeals court -- and insists that (the old) Righthaven would succeed on appeal and get a litany of district court rulings against it overturned.

The filing is also chock full of snide remarks directed at Marc Randazza, with Gibson suggesting that the fact that blogs and others in the press have been mocking him is all because of Randazza -- and that the press' interest in this case is somehow unfair to him. Gibson really does seem taken aback at the fact that no one seems to be on his side any more. His own lawyer won't returns his calls. His job at Righthaven has been stripped away. He's being investigated for all this. So you can understand why he's lashing out and going legal, but this can't end well for him.

Rather, it appears that the Receiver is following the agenda of Mr. Randazza who apparently has a very serious concern that the Ninth Circuit will rule in Righthaven’s favor and unravel, finally, his vigorous press campaign, his personal attacks and any right to legal fees he currently enjoys. Unlike Mr. Randazza, Righthaven generally has made a conscious decision to not litigate matters in the press, to not engage in personal attacks either before the courts or otherwise and to address the legal arguments in a clinical fashion.

Independently, as addressed more fully, infra, I remain the manager of the manager of Righthaven and I should have the right to hire or terminate Righthaven counsel.

In other words, this saga is simply not over yet.

Filed Under: lara pearson, marc randazza, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Former Righthaven CEO Secretly Hires Lawyers For The Company He No Longer Has Anything To Do With

from the that's-not-right dept

We'd pretty much thought that the Righthaven saga was over. After all, the company had gone into receivership back in December, and the court-appointed receiver had been auctioning off what little assets the company had in an attempt to satisfy all of the court-ordered attorneys' fees that Righthaven owed to the lawyers of some of the many defendants that Righthaven sued for copyright infringement on a repeatedly-rejected legal theory. At the same time, the CEO/founder of Righthaven, Steve Gibson had stopped showing up in court, had taken another job, and was being investigated by the Nevada State Bar.

As far as the court-appointed receiver, Lara Pearson, knew, Gibson and his wife Raisha "Drizzle" Gibson (who had been "COO" of Righthaven) no longer had anything to do with the company.

And then... she discovered that Gibson had somehow secured another law firm to supposedly represent "Righthaven" in its appeal of the Hoehn case (the first of the big losses that resulted in attorneys' fees being owed). That firm apparently tried to file some documents in the appeal six months late. This was quite a surprise, and Pearson reacted, as she should, by sending notices to both Gibsons, to the law firm that they employed and to the court explaining why this was ridiculous. In the letters, you can tell that Pearson is quite reasonably angry with the Gibsons, whom she reminds no longer have control over the firm, and makes it explicit to them that they were fired back in December. On top of that, she explains her intent to take legal action against the Gibsons for legal malpractice:

Your actions have caused, and continue to cause ongoing harm to Righthaven and its finances. To put an end to this damage and prevent future harm, I hereby remove any and all authority for you to act on behalf of the company, and formally place you on notice that the company will be taking legal action against you for your ultra vires acts as well as for claims of legal malpractice, which led the company to its current state.

.... Recently, it has come to my attention that you engaged the services of Miller Barondess LLP in Righthaven v. Hoehn.... I was neither informed of nor did I authorized this action, nor did I authorize any expenditure. Engaging yet another law firm and pursuing an appeal that both the Ninth Circuit and the District of Nevada have declined to find has a substantial likelihood of success is not in Righthaven's best interest...

Presently, Righthaven must satisfy more than $350,000 in judgments entered against it.... For you or anyone else acting on behalf of Righthaven to incur new fees or engage in any activity other than mitigating these liability is directly contrary to the company's best interests.

[....] To be clear, you are fully terminated from any position with Righthaven LLC. You are prohibited from taking further action on its behalf, and may not hold yourself out as an officer, employee, or representative of the company. Any further actions you purport to take on Righthaven's behalf shall be met with requests for injunctive relief and personal sanctions...

The letter to the law firm that Gibson retained is equally direct:

Mr. Gibson does not and has not had authority to enter new contracts and incur new expenses for the company, which presently must satisfy more than $350,000 in judgments entered against it.

I was unaware that Mr. Gibson had retained your firm until Mr. Hoehn's counsel inquired about this development and whether I had approved it. Mr. Gibson has no authority to act on behalf of Righthaven -- and even if he did, the act of pursuing this appeal would add further costs onto Righthaven's already substantial debts -- which I would not have approved... I demand that you cease all billing activity immdiately. I also demand that you provide me with a full accounting of all funds in trust for Righthaven.... All future actions taken with respect to Righthaven require my approval, as I am the only person with the authority to make decisions on Righthaven's behalf unless and until my receivership is terminated.

Finally, in the filing with the court, Pearson notes that this action indicates that Gibson has been hiding certain Righthave funds/assets:

Instead of satisfying Righthaven's substantial judgments, Gibson has elected to allocate Righthaven funds that have been concealed from me to pursue appeals over rights that Righthaven no longer owns, and has done so in a manner that further imperils what is left of Righthaven's assets with additional attorneys' fees awards and sanctions.

Filed Under: lara pearson, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

EFF Slams Righthaven CEO For Pretending He Can Ignore Court Orders

from the contempt-of-court dept

We recently wrote about Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson's bizarre claim that a court order directed at him is inapplicable because he's just the CEO, and the company's own lawyers (who he blames everything on) won't return his calls. Now the EFF (who is representing Thomas DiBiase in the case) has filed a response (pdf) in which they highlight how positively insane it is for Gibson to pretend that, as a CEO, he can avoid responding to court orders directed as a company. The whole thing is worth reading -- these are just a few good snippets (it was tough to narrow it down to figure out which ones to quote):

Mr. Gibson’s claim that he has “not heard from Righthaven’s legal counsel [Mr. Mangano] since February, 2012,” and that Mr. Mangano has simply disappeared is similar to Mr. DiBiase’s experience.2 Resp. at 3. However, it is quite perplexing in light of Righthaven’s consent to the withdrawal of attorney Dale Cendali just last week in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, Case No. 10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF (Dkt. 186) (March 21, 2012), knowingly leaving that case solely in the hands of Mr. Mangano. Presumably Mr. Gibson, as a responsible CEO, would not give that consent knowing it left Righthaven without representation.

[....]

Mr. Gibson asserts Righthaven lacks the funds to order the transcript. Resp. at 6, n.5. Mr. Gibson does not provide any evidence to support his claim of no funds (the very evidence sought by the underlying February 7 Order). To the extent that Mr. Gibson is attempting to belatedly assert an impossibility defense, he has utter failed to show “categorically and in detail” why he is unable to comply.... Even accepting that “Righthaven currently has no revenues.” ... this does not mean it has no assets or access to funds. Indeed, Mr. Gibson specifically states there is “no reason to believe that one or more of Righthaven’s parents would not continue to make capital contributions....” Mr. Gibson is obliquely referencing himself. As noted previously, Righthaven’s Bank of Nevada statements show that Mr. Gibson has been personally funding Righthaven to keep its balance just above zero.

Moreover, Mr. Gibson admits that Righthaven had access to sufficient funds to pay Mr. Mangano for months after its revenue dried up, asserting “[u]p until Mangano became totally incommunicado [mid-February 2012], Righthaven fulfilled all payment obligations to Mangano.”... Righthaven’s bank records show that Mr. Mangano was being paid regularly in installments of around $2,475.00.... The money Righthaven will now save by not paying Mr. Mangano is more than enough to pay for the transcript of a half-day debtor’s examination. Mr. Gibson’s deliberate decision not to use funds available to Righthaven does not constitute “impossibility.”

[....]

Perhaps anticipating this obvious course of action, Mr. Gibson asserts, without citation, that he “cannot represent Righthaven before the Court” and that he does not have the “capability to personally appear before the Court without legal counsel.”.... This assertion is belied by the fact that Mr. Gibson actually has represented Righthaven before this Court in this case. See Order Granting Substitution.... Indeed, three other Righthaven in-house counsel have represented Righthaven over the course of this litigation: Charles Coons, Joseph Chu and Anne Peroni. When Mr. Gibson was representing Righthaven in litigation, he often negotiated directly with opposing counsel, and has appeared in court. There is no impediment to Mr. Gibson entering an appearance, especially if that is what is required for him to comply with court orders.

The filing also attacks the ridiculous notion that Gibson did not "have notice" of the order against Righthaven, even though its lawyer, Shawn Mangano, had received notice. As the EFF notes, if the court accepts Gibson's bizarre claim, anyone in a lawsuit can "avoid" notice by simply having a lawyer who refuses to pass along the notices. That's clearly not how the law works. Furthermore, the EFF quotes another case about how a party in a lawsuit can't just turn against their own lawyers and blame them:

Mr. Gibson has no one to blame but himself for Mangano’s inaction. Mr. Gibson “voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent.”...

There's a lot more in there that raises serious questions about Gibson's claims (yet again). I don't think I've ever seen a legal strategy executed quite as stupendously poorly as Righthaven's continued bungling of almost everything. What's especially stunning is going back to the very beginning and remembering just how cocky Gibson was about Righthaven as a brilliant business and legal idea.

Filed Under: officers, steve gibson, thomas dibiase
Companies: eff, righthaven

Righthaven Case Gets Even More Bizarre: CEO Files Statement About How Righthaven's Own Lawyer Won't Respond To Him

from the you-can't-make-this-up dept

Every time you think the Righthaven farce must be over -- or, at the very least, couldn't get any stranger -- something new pops up. The latest is that Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson (who, as we've mentioned, has already moved on to a new lawyer job, while still technically being CEO of Righthaven) has submitted a bizarre filing with the court that basically plays the "me? I've got nothing to do with any of this!" card in trying to avoid having to provide some key documents in one of the many cases where Righthaven owes attorneys' fees for its bogus lawsuits.

For a rather complete takedown of Gibson's filing and why it may create significant legal problems for Gibson later, I recommend Patrick Anderson's vicious dissection of the filing. Gibson, a lawyer now working for a big law firm, claims that he's a "non-party" in this lawsuit, despite being the CEO and key officer in the company in question. He insists that, despite being a lawyer, as the CEO he cannot act as a lawyer for the firm. However, as Anderson notes, in the early days, Gibson did exactly that and signed various filings for Righthaven: Elsewhere in the filing, Gibson basically says that Righthaven's own lawyer, Shawn Mangano, simply refuses to respond to his contact attempts, and he actually tells the court it should compel Mangano to appear. Yes, this is the CEO of a company telling the court that it can't contact its own lawyer and that the court should step in and force that lawyer to show up:

I have attempted by way of letter, telephone and electronic mail to contact Mangano in order to receive updates on the statuses of all cases to no avail. Mangano has been entirely uncommunicative. Mangano cannot complain of non-payment, as Righthaven made all required payments, until such time as Mangano became entirely uncommunicative.

As Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Righthaven, I do not have any means to effect compliance with the Minute Order but stand prepared to assist within the province of the law and not in a manner that causes me to engage in personal efforts above and beyond that which the CEO of Righthaven is capable of doing with the limited resources currently available to Righthaven, assuming I receive notice of same.

Therefore, Gibson hereby respectfully requests this Court to order Mangano to appear before the Court and effect compliance with the Minute Order. Gibson further requests this Court order Mangano to reinvigorate Mangano’s representation of Righthaven until such time as this Court would find appropriate the withdrawal by Mangano.

Anderson, however, notes a bizarre contradiction within Gibson's own filing. He notes both that Gibson states that "Righthaven has no funds" to order a copy of the transcript which the court is demanding of him... but then also notes that Mangano shouldn't fear not getting paid for working for Righthaven because "one or more of Righthaven's parents" would likely "continue to make capital contributions." In other words, Gibson appears to both plead poverty in paying for a copy the court has ordered him to get and the fact that it has access to money to pay lawyers to get that same document in the same filing. Wow.

Anderson also mocks Gibson for later "apologizing" in the filing for not having access to specific case citation page numbers, noting that while this is a minor point, earlier in the filing Gibson admits that he is employed as a lawyer at a giant law firm, and is filing this particular court filing via his CM/ECF login (Case Management/Electronic Case Files), which he has because of his employment at that law firm. Anderson cuts through the crap and points out that Gibson must be hoping the judge is a complete moron:

So “convenience” allows Gibson to use his ECF account, but apparently does not allow him to use an actual law library to read the cases cited against him and respond with accurate page numbers.

Anderson, a patent attorney who often writes about how companies can use patents to make money, worries that Righthaven and Gibson's crazy antics will come back to haunt patent trolling firms:

When Gibson eventually defends himself in an argument over whether he should be protected by the corporate veil, his opponents will make sure each little infraction comes back to bite at his credibility. If Gibson loses, and becomes personally liable for actions of his LLC, that decision becomes reported and used as precedent in other cases. At minimum, that’s going to raise legal costs and uncertainty for LLC owners everywhere, particular in the IP arena because every patent monetization company is going to be compared to Righthaven, and even the owner of a patent who loses on a good faith argument of infringement or validity may end up having personal assets at least threatened as a result.

I assume that some folks around here don't think that's a particularly bad result. And even though I'm not a fan of Righthaven or patent trolling companies, I do think that we should be pretty careful about under what circumstances the corporate veil should be pierced (though I know many here disagree). To be honest, the more we see about the way Righthaven acted, I think there is growing evidence that it was abusing the corporate structure to do questionable things -- and thus, this might be a case where corporate veil piercing makes sense. As long as other trolling operations aren't doing that, then perhaps this won't be as big an issue.

Filed Under: court, drizzle, raisha gibson, receivership, shawn mangano, showing up, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven Completely Stops Showing Up In Court, Loses Key Case, Key Appeals And 'Big Name' Lawyer Who It Still Owes Money To

from the death-of-righthaven dept

Over the past few weeks there's been some more Righthaven news, as the company has continued the trend it started last year of not showing up and missing deadlines. Now it appears that it's just completely given up. CEO Steve Gibson is working at another job (while being investigated by the Nevada Bar) and main lawyer Shawn Mangano apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court. All this has resulted in the key appeals in its cases to be dismissed "for lack of prosecution." Last Thursday it also had a key case closed, with prejudice, driving another (yes another) nail in its already buried coffin.

Also, you may recall that, last summer, Righthaven trumpeted the fact that it had hired famed copyright maximalist lawyer Dale Cendali to help with some of the cases -- including this key one against the Pahrump Life blog. This hiring was part of why Gibson insisted that the courts respected Righthaven (even as they were losing case after case). Cendali is considered a bigshot in some copyright circles, leading some to think that Righthaven might actually have some ability to pull out of its tailspin. However, the sum total of her contributions to Righthaven's legal fights appears to have been a ridiculous filing last summer in which she tried to compare Righthaven to patent trolls -- an argument the court later found entirely unconvincing.

Cendali has now said she's withdrawn from all Righthaven cases, even though her name still appears officially as counsel for the company in one of the recently dismissed appeals. She claims that she was really just hired for couple small issues which she completed last summer (such as the filing mentioned above) and had been told that Mangano would handle the rest of the cases. She also has told the court that Righthaven hasn't paid her firm what it owes. Actually, other than the initial retainer, she says Righthaven't hasn't paid any other legal fees. In other words, Righthaven paid the initial retainer fee so it could blast out the fact that it hired her... and then refused to pay for any of the actual work she did. Par for the course for Righthaven.

Either way, with the dismissals of the key appeals, as well as the Pahrump Life case -- which was considered a key fight -- combined with the fact that pretty much everyone involved with Righthaven seems to have moved on to other things and is flat out ignoring anything Righthaven-related, when do we finally get to call the official time of death for Righthaven?

Filed Under: copryight, dale cendali, shawn mangano, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven CEO, Plus Two Former Righthaven Lawyers, Being Investigated By Nevada State Bar

from the hits-just-keep-on-coming dept

It appears that the Nevada State Bar has decided that some of the complaints against Righthaven that were filed over the past couple of years are worthy of a more detailed investigation. The bar has initiated an inquiry against Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson, as well as two of Righthaven's former lawyers, specifically regarding Righthaven. According to Vegas Inc.:

Phil Pattee, assistant Bar counsel, said the agency couldn’t disclose the nature of the grievances against the attorneys or whether they relate to complaints from outside parties or the Bar’s own review of the Righthaven cases or both. But he confirmed the grievances relate to the attorneys’ work for Righthaven.

“We’ll be asking them about Righthaven,” he said.

One other interesting tidbit in the article: apparently Gibson has a new job -- back to working as a lawyer, now in the Las Vegas office of Detroit-based law firm, Dickinson Wright.

Gibson, not surprisingly, is outwardly confident that this inquiry is not a big deal:

“I will be responding to the informational requests of the Bar and believe that after such responses and clarifications, the matter will be properly addressed. Miss Lowry indicates her concurrence,” Gibson said Thursday.

Of course, this is the same Steve Gibson who insisted that the courts believed in Righthaven and believed the company was "genuine," but were just pushing back to "give some guidance" for Righthaven competitors. Of course, in both cases he may turn out to be right. It's just that the "matter may be properly addressed" in a manner that Gibson does not like. And, as for "guidance," it appears that the guidance the courts were giving Righthaven competitors could be summed up as "don't do anything that Righthaven has been doing."

Filed Under: investigation, nevada, state bar, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven Actually Shows Up In Court, Whines About 'Scorched Earth' Attacks Against It

from the can-we-define-irony? dept

Righthaven became famous for being one of the first copyright holders to go after alleged online infringement... by suing first, without ever sending any sort of takedown notice. That, alone, raised some questions about Righthaven's tactics. The company also -- for no clear reason -- demanded not just payment, but also that sites turn over their own domain names. It was this level of intimidation (via the legal system) that caused many sites to simply settle, rather than pay to fight it. If ever there was a company guilty of using overly aggressive litigation techniques, it would be Righthaven. And yet... in a rather ironic move, the company is now complaining about the tactics used against it by lawyer Marc Randazza, who has been relentless in pursuing the attorney's fees that the court has ordered Righthaven to pay.

Though, yes, this does mean that Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, actually showed up in court this time. Righthaven also complained that Randazza's efforts were just to get press attention (well, if Righthaven isn't going to pay them, they might as well get publicity some way...). Either way, the judge issued a protective order blocking anyone from revealing the financial information uncovered during a debtor's examination of Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and his wife.

Separately, an appeals court rejected Righthaven's attempt to get an injunction to stop Righthaven assets from being auctioned off... It seems like another bad day for those supporting Righthaven.

Filed Under: appeal, marc randazza, scorched earth, shawn mangano, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven Fails To Show Up In Court As Ordered... When Confronted Says It Got Confused Over The Date

from the a-study-in-incompetence dept

As you may recall, when the federal district court in Nevada granted Marc Randazza's request to turn Righthaven's assets over to a receiver, for the sake of using them to satisfy the court ordered attorneys' fees in the Hoehn case, the court also ordered -- pretty damn clearly -- that Righthaven's principles, Steve Gibson and Raisha "Drizzle" Y. Gibson, appear in court on January 5th. Already, we knew that Righthaven had failed -- as required by the court -- to produce certain documents a week prior to this hearing (for which Randazza has asked the court to declare Righthaven in contempt). You may notice that the date on the calendar is now January 6th.

It's one thing to ignore opposing counsel. It's another to ignore multiple direct court orders, including one to appear in court. But... neither Gibson showed up in court yesterday. Nor did Righthaven's main lawyer: Shawn Mangano. According to Randazza, the judge then called Mangano who claimed that he "thought it was tomorrow" (but did not explain the failure to deliver the required documents).

This is pretty amazing. We've had people in our comments repeatedly asking about the January 5th deadline. If a bunch of our commenters can keep the date straight, can't the lawyer for the company being dragged into court? As I said, Righthaven's ability to do exactly the wrong thing at nearly every opportunity is stunning. And every time we think we can't be surprised any more, something like this happens. This is the most amazing study in incompetence we've ever seen. This is a company that failed to properly secure the copyrights it was suing over, chose not to use the DMCA's takedown procedures, often targeted questionable cases of infringement, sued people over clear fair use situations, used a completely bogus demand for domain names in the lawsuits it filed, has been accused of theunauthorized practice of law in multiple states, failed to list Stephens Media as an interested party as required by Nevada law (for which it was sanctioned), failed to file many documents on time, missed deadlines for certain important filings, failed to pay attorneys' fees owed, lost cases due not just to the failure to secure copyright properly but also to missing deadlines, had an appeal thrown out for failing to follow proper procedure... and, has been sued by their own process server for failure to pay its bills. And now this (and I'm probably missing some stuff!).

The judge has set a new hearing date for Monday, January 9th at 9am. I can't imagine that the Gibsons and Mangano could possibly think they can get away with missing that one, too -- but if you had asked, I never would have believed most of the things that Righthaven has done so far would ever happen in real life.

Filed Under: court, drizzle, marc randazza, raisha gibson, receivership, shawn mangano, showing up, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven

from the you-knew-this-was-coming dept

This won't come as much of a surprise to anyone following the ongoing battle between Righthaven and Marc Randazza, representing Wayne Hoehn (Randazza is also representing other clients fighting Righthaven, but much of the "action" is in the Hoehn case). The latest is a filing (embedded below) for the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of the court for completely ignoring a court order from December 12th to produce certain documents to Randazza as part of the effort to collect the attorneys' fees that the court has already ordered:

Righthaven has failed to respect this Court's lawful order. On December 12, this Court entered an order granting Hoehn's motion to conduct a debtors examination in the presence of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 67). Righthaven did not oppose Hoehn's motion seeking a debtors exam, and therefore consented to this Court's entry of an order scheduling one (Docs. # 60, 64). At this time, there is no stay in place to inhibit the debtors exam from proceeding (Docs. # 56, 57).

In order to ensure his debtors exam was efficient, targeted and fruitful, Hoehn moved the Court to order Righthaven to produce certain documents in advance of the examination (Docs. # 60, 60-4). The Court granted this request by adopting Hoehn's proposed order, and instructed Righthaven in clear, unambiguous language, to produce to Hoehn all of the following at least one (1) week before the scheduled examination:

Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, vehicles, bank accounts, bank deposits, company securities, intangible intellectual property and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy this Court's judgment and writ of execution, including money owed to Judgment Debtor by others, and other information of the like;

and

Any and all information and documentation identifying purchases, transfers of funds, or other dissipation of assets from Righthaven to yourselves or any other third parties commencing on or about April 15, 2011. (Doc. # 67 at 2)

By obtaining these documents, Hoehn hoped to prepare for the debtors examination with specific, narrowly tailored questions about any unexplained or suspicious assets or transactions. Righthaven has refused to produce these documents, to discuss their production, or to even acknowledge that the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce these documents...

One week after the Court's order instructing Righthaven to produce the above-described documents, December 19, Hoehn's counsel sent a facsimile message to Righthaven's counsel inquiring about the production of those documents, as Righthaven had not contacted Hoehn about their production.... Righthaven's counsel had previously requested that all correspondence occur exclusively via U.S. Mail or facsimile, and Hoehn's counsel honored this request .... Sensing that Righthaven may not comply with the Court's order, Hoehn's counsel subpoenaed several banks doing business in Las Vegas for any financial records they may have for Righthaven LLC .... Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), Hoehn's counsel provided a notice of these subpoenas to Righthaven's counsel .... Since bank records were just a small portion of the documents the Court ordered Righthaven to produce, Hoehn's counsel specifically reminded Righthaven of its duty to produce these documents in advance of the debtors exam, despite the subpoena .... To the contrary, the subpoenas heightened the need for Righthaven's records, as they were needed were needed in order to check for discrepancies against the bank-issued financial records.

Having received no reply from Righthaven with respect to the December 19 letter or December 21 notice, Hoehn's counsel sent another letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile on December 26, 2011.... Righthaven's counsel did not respond to this communication.... After the close of business on December 29, 2011, one week before the scheduled debtors examination, Hoehn's counsel again sent a letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile and U.S. Mail, seeking production of these documents ... To date, Righthaven's counsel has not responded to this communication

I would suggest that Righthaven's strategy of trying to completely ignore Randazza is not likely to be successful.

Filed Under: contempt of court, marc randazza, shawn mangano, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven