Australian Man Banned From Filing Lawsuits After Filing 50 In 10 Years

from the 'sue-defendant'-cooldown-needs-to-be-nerfed dept

How many lawsuits can a person pursue before the legal system decides to cut them off? In Australia, 50 lawsuits gets you eighty-sixed, as one Sydney man found out. (well, I'd say the "hard way," but he genuinely seemed to enjoy availing himself of this particular service.)

[A]fter 50 cases in just 10 years, a science teacher has been banned from taking anyone else to court after Justice Michael Adams ruled he was a vexatious litigant who has used the judicial system to "harass, annoy or achieve another wrongful purpose".

Mr Rahman, a Bangladeshi immigrant, is the 12th person to be put on the State's vexatious litigant register, meaning he cannot start legal proceedings without first seeking the courts' consent.

Rahman isn't completely forbidden from filing lawsuits. He just has to get permission first, something that will likely be very difficult considering his misuse of the court system over the last decade, misuse that includes filing lawsuits to re-litigate already determined decisions. He also sued his own legal team, resulting in him paying them even more than he previously owed.

You'd think Rahman would quit while he's behind (he's in danger of losing his two homes and has spent over a half-million dollars fighting his legal battles), but he's not giving up yet.

A defiant Mr Rahman said: "This is a crime against humanity, I will take them to the International Criminal Court if I have to."

Techdirt reader Jess sent this story in with a note inquiring about Techdirt's take on this -- whether it was a good/bad idea or simply amusing. Here's mine.

My first thought was about patent trolls, some of the most "vexatious" of litigants. However, patent trolls really don't want to end up in court. Most are only in court (and only in East Texas) because their settlement letters failed to result in free money. While some trolls would hit this 50-lawsuit limit quickly, a vast majority wouldn't.

Copyright trolls, on the other hand, are more and more frequently being viewed as "vexatious" by judges handling their mass lawsuits. Again, these trolls only end up in court when the settlement letters fail. Also, they've mostly been allowed to "bundle" their defendants, which makes it even harder for these litigants to hit the 50-suit cutoff. If they were forced to file separately for each Doe, these lawsuits would likely vanish. There's simply not enough of a payoff suing one-to-one.

But, despite all of the above, I can't really see a hard limit on lawsuits being an effective deterrent. Here in the US, this sort of thing would run afoul of protected civil liberties. The system itself can usually work this sort of thing out. Vexatious litigants tend not to stay unknown for very long.

The underlying problem is those stuck at the other end of vexatious lawsuits. Even the most meritless lawsuit costs real money to defend against. Completely uninvolved taxpayers also foot the bill for vexatious legal activity. So, it can be a real problem, but one that an arbitrary cutoff is unlikely to fix without doing corresponding damage to non-vexatious litigants who find themselves tangled in the legal system more frequently than they'd prefer.

And as for the patent/copyright trolls, chances are they'd just create more shell companies to route around any filing limits (although this scheme may be on its way to extinction), which makes this even more likely to just end up hurting non-trolls and non-vexatious litigants. There's no easy fix but the solution probably lies somewhere between the self-regulation performed by judges (who will have a grasp on which litigants are "vexatious") and legislation targeting the activities of professional "vexations litigants." The common man who sues too much falls between these cracks, but it's better to bear the occasional burden than to risk locking those with legitimate lawsuits out of the process.

Filed Under: australia, troll, vexatious litigation

Med Express Sues Marginally Dissatisfied Customer For Posting Accurate Feedback On eBay

from the talk-about-inconvenience dept

Here's yet another example of companies using lawsuits to censor speech -- a situation that would be stopped if there was a serious federal anti-SLAPP law in place. Paul Levy shares the incredible story of a company called "Med Express," an Ohio company, who appears to sell various medical equipment exclusively via eBay (there are other "Med Express" companies out there from what I can tell). One buyer, in South Carolina, purchased something, but was disappointed by the fact that the product arrived postage due. The woman noted it wasn't the fact that she had to pay, just the inconvenience of having to pay to get the delivery when it wasn't expected. In response, she left negative feedback on Med Express' eBay page.

While Med Express did express regret (while noting that some other customers had seen the same problem) and offered to reimburse the postage due, it also asked her to remove the negative review. However, as she noted, it wasn't the money issue, but the inconvenience, so she decided to leave her feedback up. At this point, Med Express and its lawyer, James Amodio, apparently decided that if she didn't like "inconvenience" it would subject her to more inconvenience and sued her for defamation in state court in Ohio and sought a temporary restraining order against eBay to block the review. While that failed, apparently the judge is allowing a hearing to happen for a preliminary injunction even though (as Levy points out) the same reason the TRO was rejected should apply to any preliminary injunction.

Amazingly, the complaint directly lays out the pretty clear fact that it's suing her for not removing a truthful review. They don't even attempt to argue that she said anything false or defamatory. Just that they feel she shouldn't have complained since they offered to reimburse.

This is where Levy, a former colleague of a relative of the customer in this case, Amy Nicholls, reached out to Amodio to point out that the lawsuit was a complete joke. Amodio's response is somewhat stunning, in that, according to Levy, he more or less admitted that he was filing a nuisance lawsuit:

I contacted James Amodio, Med Express’s lawyer, to explain to him the many ways in which his lawsuit is untenable.  He readily admitted that, as the complaint admits, everything that the customer had posted in her feedback was true; he did not deny that a statement has to be false to be actionable as defamation; but he just plain didn’t care.  To the contrary, he told me that I could come up to Medina, Ohio, and argue whatever I might like, but that the case was going to continue unless the feedback was taken down or changed to positive.  And he explained why his client was insisting on this change — he said that it sells exclusively over eBay, where a sufficient level of negative feedback can increase the cost of such sales as well as possibly driving away customers

Yet another case of felony interference with a business model, apparently, except in this case the company and the lawyer seem to be fine with abusing defamation law to stop a truthful review from appearing online because it might hurt them. Of course, suing a customer seems like the sort of thing likely to lead to significantly more negative feedback and fewer people willing to buy from them. Yes, a negative review can suck, but suing over it, while admitting that you don't really care about all the reasons that the lawsuit is censorious crap, is taking things to another level entirely.

As Levy notes, if a "public spirited lawyer in that part of Ohio" wants to take up a case to stand up for free speech and against censorious attacks, here's an opening.

Filed Under: censorship, customer reviews, defamation, free speech, james amodio, paul levy, threats, vexatious litigation
Companies: med express

Charles Carreon Has To Pay $46K In Legal Fees

from the boom dept

Charles Carreon may not be having a very good day. As you may recall, Carreon "represented" an internet site, Funnyjunk, that threatened Matthew Inman over an Oatmeal cartoon that made fun of that client. When Inman hit back with a (very successful) IndieGoGo campaign to raise money for charity, Carreon, ridiculously, sued Inman, IndieGoGo and the charities. After realizing the case had almost no chance of succeeding, Carreon dropped the lawsuit. However he (along with his wife) have since had an ongoing campaign attacking anyone (including us) who has mocked or criticized the Carreons over the whole Inman/Oatmeal fiasco. In one case, Carreon threatened a satirical, mocking blogger, even promising to wait until the public interest was gone to sue at a later date.

In response, the blogger filed for declaratory judgment that his actions were legit. Carreon responded by literally hiding from being served while also trying to intimidate the blogger, even contacting and threatening to sue his employer. After finally getting served, Carreon basically caved on every point, effectively settling the case. Except, Charles Carreon, brilliant legal mind, apparently didn't realize that he was still subject to having to pay legal fees. Over the past few months Carreon has done everything possible to avoid having to pay those legal fees, lashing out at the lawyers involved, demanding they submit to discovery and depositions, and even claiming that Paul Levy and Cathy Gellis, the lawyers representing the blogger, were involved in some sort of conspiracy against him, while simultaneously arguing (no joke) that he has a First Amendment right to make vexatious legal threats.

Despite all that impressive tap-dancing, it appears the court was not moved. Carreon has been told to pay $46,100.25. The court is not at all impressed by Carreon's legal "theories." Here's a sample snippet, trashing Carreon's reasoning:

Defendant first opposes plaintiff’s motion, arguing the traditional American Rule applies, in which litigants “pay their own attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.” ... He contends this case not be found to be an exception to that traditional rule, as the action was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which does not have a fee-shifting provision. While declaratory relief was the remedy sought, the claim for relief arose under the Lanham Act. Indeed, this Court would not have jurisdiction over this matter without the presence of a federal question, in the form of the Lanham Act. Defendant offers no support for the proposition that the statute supporting the underlying claim should be ignored in favor of the statute providing for the legal remedy. He has pointed to no authority to suggest that when only declaratory relief is sought, as opposed to damages or injunctive relief, the Declaratory Judgment Act supersedes the act providing for the underlying claim for relief. Without such authority, it defies logic to ignore the fee-shifting provision provided by the Lanham Act in favor of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

As for his first amendment claim, and the suggestion that this lawsuit was a SLAPP suit designed to silence him... the court is again, not impressed, noting that this is a standard declaratory judgment case filed over Carreon's own threatening email, and pointing out that under Carreon's reading, any declaratory judgment against a threat could be seen as an anti-SLAPP case, which makes no sense. Finally, Carreon tried to argue that no fees should be awarded because the case is not "exceptional", while also arguing that the blogger had intent to profit because "it contained two links to websites that are operated for-profit." The court, again, doesn't see how this makes the case Carreon thinks it makes, noting that two links to commercial websites does not make the original site a for-profit entity. As for the claim that this case is not "exceptional," well, there's where the judicial smackdown comes in. No, the court says, the case wasn't exceptional, until Carreon went nutty:

While defendant’s threatened claims were not “exceptional” at the outset of this case, defendant’s actions throughout the litigation certainly transformed this case into an “exceptional” matter, deserving of an award of attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit has stated that “bad faith or other malicious conduct satisfies the exceptional circumstances requirement.” Boney, 127 F.3d at 827. Evidence supports a finding of malicious conduct during the course of this case. Defendant first went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service. Then, in response to this motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, defendant engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics in preparation of his opposition to the motion. The Ninth Circuit discourages major litigation with respect to attorney fees. See, e.g., Camacho, 523 F.3d at 981; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (“A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.”). Defendant’s serving of interrogatories and taking of plaintiff’s deposition amounted to a mini-trial on plaintiff’s motion for fees. Indeed, plaintiff incurred an additional $37,650.25 in fees and costs after his motion was filed. Despite this additional discovery, defendant has presented no evidence to support his initial contention that plaintiff’s attorney is on a mission to “turn Internet gripe sites into profit centers for him and Public Citizen Law Group.” Doc. #45, at 4. Defendant has failed to show that his additional discovery efforts led to anything other than additional frustration for plaintiff and his attorneys. Accordingly, plaintiff’s efforts to respond to defendant’s litigation tactics merit the imposition of a fees award.

The court then laughs off Carreon's suggestion that legal fees should be merely $200, by noting that Carreon provides no explanation for why, and that this ignores all the time and effort Levy and Gellis had to put in. As for the breakdown of the fees, it's $8,450 for the initial case... and the other $37,650.25 all stems from Carreon's crazy fight against attorney fees. All of this from a case that came about because of his own ridiculous legal threats.

So... the question remains: will Charles Carreon stop digging?

Update: Paul Levy has posted his own analysis, noting that while it's good, it is not a complete victory for consumers:

The opinion is not a perfect one, from a consumer perspective. The Ninth Circuit does not limit fee awards to those who successfully defend against frivolous trademark claims; under Ninth Circuit law, it is enough that the suit be “groundless or unreasonable.” On the other hand, the fact that Judge Seeborg drew a different distinction in the context of trademark claims that were only threatened, and never actually made the basis for a complaint, allows future successful defendants to argue that the “groundless or unreasonable” standard still applies in that sort of case.

He also points out that the old adage of lawyers representing themselves holds true:

First, it reminds us of the adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Carreon did himself a disservice by representing himself after we sought a declaratory judgment. A good lawyer would have counseled him not to duck service, and he could have given Carreon good advice about his offer of judgment — we would have been happy to discuss a compromise on fees at that point of the litigation, and indeed it does not appear to me that Carreon understood, when he sent the offer of judgment, that it was going to subject him to an award of fees by making Recouvreur a prevailing party. And a lawyer would likely have advised him not to embark on the course of frivolous and abusive discovery. I urged Carreon on more than one occasion to get himself a lawyer, if not to negotiate with me then at least to give him an objective opinion about what he was facing. This was particularly important because Carreon is a sole practitioner who does not have colleagues off whom he can bounce ideas, and because he rejected private advice from at least one lawyer who has told me of his efforts to help Carreon to steer himself into safer waters. And a document that Carreon showed Recouvreur during his deposition makes clear that he actually was talking to another lawyer when he made his first threat to Register.com.

Carreon made clear at various points in the fee proceedings, that he had made his threats out of anger at the public obloquy he was facing, making independent judgment from a lawyer he could respect particularly important. He seemed to be asking me to put myself in his shoes and take pity. On a human level, I can understand how this could happen, and there is no way that Carreon would be facing this judgment if he had obtained independent counsel. But it is not an excuse for what he put Recouvreur through.

Separately, he points out that in the whole fight over whether or not Carreon could engage in discovery, demanding information from Levy, the judge warned Carreon not to go overboard, and then used Carreon's excessive discovery against him in the ruling. As Levy notes, "be careful what you ask for, because you might get it."

Filed Under: carreon effect, cathy gellis, charles carreon, legal fees, paul levy, vexatious litigation

Charles Carreon Claims A First Amendment Right To Make Vexatious Legal Threats Without Consequence

from the that's-an-interesting-one dept

If you haven't had your dose of nutty legal claims of late, Adam Steinbaugh alerts us to the latest in the long and ongoing saga of our buddy Charles Carreon. When we last checked in on Carreon, he had more or less admitted that his legal threats against a satirical blogger making fun of him were baseless, and had voluntarily agreed to "settle" the case. In that effort, Carreon ignored the issue of legal fees, so the lawyers for the blogger -- Paul Levy and Cathy Gellis (disclosure: I know both of them and consider them friends, and Levy has acted as our legal representative on multiple occasions, so take any analysis with however many grains of salt you'd like) -- sought legal fees. Carreon went on a bizarre rant against Levy in his filing for an extension, trying to build up some conspiracy theory involving Levy somehow trolling the internet for people like himself to go after.

Of course, that ignores that Levy was going after Carreon because of Carreon's vexatious legal threats against the blogger -- to the point that Carreon directly stated that he would wait until interest in the case had gone cold before suing and causing trouble for the blogger. And, even after all of this began, after Register.com stupidly gave up the name of the blogger (on no legal basis), Carreon (while avoiding being served himself) contacted the blogger's employer, Walgreens, and threatened to drag it into the lawsuit as well. Frankly, we could use a few more good lawyers trolling the web to seek to stop people like Carreon from making baseless legal threats.

Carreon has now filed his response to the attempt to get legal fees out of him, and in true Carreon fashion, it's quite a filing. First of all, it highlights that in responding to a discussion over legal fees, Carreon hit back at both Paul Levy and Ken "Popehat" White with significant discovery efforts. White told Carreon to pound sand (more or less). Levy, it appears, delivered the requested documents. Of course, the documents don't show much of anything that impact the discussion at hand, but Carreon uses them to continue his attack on the satirical blogger. Among the "findings"

• The blogger (Carreon uses the ridiculous term "Gripesite Operator") is "not a journalist." So what? What does that have to do with anything, let alone legal fees?
• The blogger is "not a web developer." Same question as above. I can't even see how that's relevant to anything
• The blogger "had not received permission to use" Carreon's "name or photograph." Uh, again, so what? What does that have to do with legal fees, especially given that Carreon has already conceded the basic case. He seems to be introducing a (ridiculous) copyright claim here, one that would backfire on him if he could actually take it anywhere.
• The blogger created the blog to "show support for the Oatmeal." Again, so what? If you don't recall, this whole mess began with Carreon's baseless legal threat towards Matthew Inman and The Oatmeal webcomic over Inman calling out another site for posting his comics without credit. Why would it possibly matter that the blog was created to show support over that threat (and subsequent lawsuit on behalf of Carreon himself, and not the site Carreon was originally representing).
• The blog linked to TheOatmeal.com, which sells stuff. Um. Again. So? The site was created to support The Oatmeal in response to the bogus legal threat Carreon filed against Inman. Why wouldn't it link to the site? And, really, if he's trying to argue some sort of "commercial" claim here, Carreon's seriously reaching.
• The blog linked to Inman's famous IndieGoGo Bear Love campaign which was started initially to mock Carreon's bogus legal threat. Again, what does this have to do with legal fees?
• The blogger has made no money from this lawsuit. Again. Same question. The lawsuit itself was filed in response to a threat from Carreon, and was not filed for monetary gain, but to have a court declare that the blog was legal to avoid the clear threat that Carreon had made against the site.
• The blogger doesn't hold the trademark for Charles Carreon. Same question.
• In the agreement Levy signed with the blogger, it noted that if legal fees were due, Levy's organization, the public interest group Public Citizen, would get those legal fees. I would imagine that's fairly standard boilerplate language.
• The blogger flew to DC from California to be deposed for this fight over legal fees, and Public Citizen paid for his flight. Again, so what?

Following all of this, Carreon actually inserts a reasonably logical argument for why legal fees may not be appropriate in this particular case. And it's true that the awarding of legal fees is somewhat rare in these kinds of cases, but it's certainly not unheard of. The key issue, for Carreon, is that he has to prove that this case is an "ordinary" case, because it's only in extraordinary cases that attorney's fees are likely to be awarded. As such, he ends up effectively defending the blogger's actions, grudgingly conceding that the First Amendment protected the satirical posts mocking Carreon.

But, because this is Carreon, and he just can't resist, it immediately veers off into wacky territory. He argues that granting legal fees in this case would allow any gripesite to go after those they're griping over for legal fees, violating the First Amendment rights of those being mocked:

If motions for attorney’s fees like the pending one were authorized, then gripesite operators posting scandalous statements like “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” and “Thank God for IEDs” on websites like “AmericasLegion.com” and “ForeignWarVets.com,” would have standing to move for attorney’s fees in declaratory relief actions against the American Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In search of fee awards, plaintiff’s counsel and his public interest colleagues would be incentivized to sue those organizations on the slightest pretext. In this way, a “First Amendment Shield” would be improperly converted into a “Lanham Act Sword,” placing trademark holders in a worse position than their antagonists, thanks to the very law intended to provide them with protection. Adding to the injury, the threat of fee recoveries for gripe-site operators would chill the First Amendment rights of markholders who respond to scandalous attacks on their marks with litigation threats, since litigation threats, that are as much entitled to First Amendment protection as derisive epithets, would provoke unique, negative pecuniary consequences.

Emphasis is in the original. Yeah. You read that right. In the first half, Carreon is ignoring that the effort for attorneys fees would only come about after a vexatious threat, such as, for example, Carreon's emailed list of threats, which included claims that he would wait until pro bono public interest lawyers might no longer be actively interested in the case to sue, and that he might sue in inconvenient locations if the blogger didn't just give up. It is those actions that are why Carreon is facing legal fees. Not just because there was a gripesite. So, no, his argument in the first half makes no sense.

The argument in the second half just goes into crazy town. He is, effectively, arguing that lawyers have a First Amendment right to make vexatious legal threats with no consequences.

But, because this is Carreon (who has been given the motto "just keep digging" by parts of the internet), he digs in even further, arguing that vexatious legal threats aren't just protected by the First Amendment, but that they're also protected by "litigation privilege." In fact, he even argues (ridiculously) that the lawsuit against him could have been dismissed via an anti-SLAPP effort.

California law is clear on this point.... The Lawyer’s email to Levy was eminently defensible in this litigation as speech protected by the litigation privilege, and no liability could have arisen from it. Indeed, the entire action might19 have been subject to dismissal by way of an Anti-SLAPP motion.

That is an... interesting reading of the law. As Steinbaugh summarizes:

I interpret Carreon’s arguments to be that (1) the site is protected by the First Amendment, but the case is not exceptional because the speech isn’t all that valuable; (2) sending legal threats is protected speech which is worth protecting; and (3) even if it were not protected speech, threatening letters are part of litigation and therefore are protected by the litigation privilege. Taken to their logical conclusion, Carreon essentially asserts that he has a First Amendment right to threaten and bring vexatious litigation.

We await the results of this case.

Filed Under: attorney's fees, cathy gellis, charles carreon, first amendment, paul levy, vexatious litigation

Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It

from the i-don't-think-it's-legal-help-that-he-needs dept

Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous situation down in Louisiana, where the "Global Wildlife Center" was able to get a judge to issue an injunction against an obviously satirical site that had written an obviously satirical article about "killer giraffes" and a "recent attack" at the Center. The article was poking fun at recent violent attacks at other zoos, normally involving animals like tigers and bears. It was amazing that a court issued the injunction, and thankfully, less than two weeks later, the injunction was removed and GWC was told to pay the legal costs for the site. And that was the last that we had heard of the Global Wildlife Center... until now.

On Friday, the Center's President apparently threatened to sue lawyer Ken White, better known as Popehat, defender of internet free speech. You see, Popehat had covered the original story too, and for some reason, the President, Ken Matherne, isn't too happy about that (even though it's three years later). Perhaps it was this tidbit in Popehat's original post (which was actually quoted from a local news site):

In addition to filing this lawsuit, via email Global Wildlife Foundation president Ken Matherne threatened to file criminal charges, FCC charges, fraud charges, an IRS complaint, a governor’s office complaint, and a federal lawsuit against Brilleaux. Matherne’s email did not explain any basis for the additional threats.

If that gives you a sense of Matherne's grasp on basic legal concepts, and his willingness to assume that he can use all sorts of totally unrelated laws against people he doesn't like, well, you're just getting a tiny little sense of what Popehat went through on Friday. You kind of have to read the whole thread on Popehat to get the full effect, because each time you think "this can't possibly get more ridiculous," it does exactly that. Assuming Matherne really did send the emails in question, he would appear to have almost as much trouble with the English language as he does with the legal concepts he uses to threaten White. Here's a snippet from the first email:

My last case to decide the Apple vs Microsoft case. I am not joking – you can send this email to the judge and soon as I file suit. I will ask you as I asked that kid to take it down, if you think your malice to to our Foundation is free speech – let’s get real lawyers and hosted judges to find out! It scared teachers, parents and the general public. They were canceling trips, it was malicious, and the evidence given to court was a fraud. I did not say anything at the time. But, I think he would get dis-board by the falsified documents he presented to the judge. His father was a friend or I would have had he dis-board.

Everyone will see the truth of you and your boyfriends. You can print this – You do not have a clue what you did to damage my foundation I created for my daughter. And when you wake up in the morning – hoping you have kids- I want you to think about what you have done. Your site has done more damage than the issue and my guys think your damages will be worse the any free speech issue. And we are ready!

We are going to dp this all legal – get ready – I will have one of your partners, associates , friends , spouses, in dispositions for the at least the next 6 – 12 months. Minimum – 1 lawsuit lasted 12.7 years, the next only 6 . I have the means – so write me back or get ready. This again is no threat. Simply a promise. It is no longer about what the kid did – it is about what your company did! And I promise you we will win = you have damaged my daughters trust for at least 50 years. You are about to meet the best attorneys on the planet.

There's also a discussion about Matherne's belief that White is apparently a dope smoking drug fiend who is having sexual relations with the partners at his law firm (or maybe on Popehat, it's not clear). White, quite calmly, asks Matherne if there was anything specific in the original post that he felt was a false statement of fact, and offered to review such claims and "make adjustments to the post if appropriate." Matherne's response was to just demand that the original Popehat article was taken down "or believe I will do everything for my daughter that you would do for your children !"

And then it got wacky.

Just send me you attorney of record – you will not hurt my daughter – I do not care what it cost ! Ken It was a BS move – and I appreciate that you do that for the best of people – but you always know our kids are first – and I don't care how many $ it takes – my daughter will not live with this – so I will ask you one more time to pull this down – as a gentleman – or I will come to you! My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine – but if you hurt my daughter through this – my executives has all authority to go until all is done – I only have 1 daughter and it breaks her heart to see this! I would not do this to you or your family!

I really love this line: "My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine."

White points out, in response, that he is still waiting for any specific inaccuracies, and notes that he's willing to speak to any attorney representing Matherne -- to which Matherne initially sent a simple "Game on!" email, followed by this (not the full email, which has more where this came from):

Get your check book out – and unless you can buy every judge to the State Supreme Court – you will pay damages = not about freedom of speech –
Oh, And I will follow up with everything I said I would do. Ken White, You better have an attorney or get one .

Cannot wait to meet you – You are and I can “quote again” a piece of shit! You do a disservice to mankind. I hope the judge we come before understands what a parasite you are and does not want his kids or grandchildren to be exposed to someone like you!

And I do not care about are inaccuracies about was said or texted. You are wrong and you are libel. Again, I do not lose lawsuits, and I do not think to can pay off the judges!

If I'm reading this right, and I believe that I am, Matherne is not only threatening to take White to court under some ridiculous legal theories, but he is flat out admitting that he does "not care" about "inaccuracies." He also seems to be admitting throughout that he's doing this to tie White up in court. I would imagine that if this ever actually got to a court and wasn't thrown out immediately, these admissions would not help his case very much.

Randomly, out of curiosity, I went to check out the website for the Global Wildlife Foundation, and discovered that if you have Javascript turned off, you can see that they've got a ton of "payday loans" spam links hidden on their page. Either they've been hacked or they're selling link spam. Maybe they should take care of that before issuing bogus legal threats trying to censor a lawyer known for vocally defending the First Amendment.

Filed Under: defamation, ken matherne, ken white, legal threats, popehat, threats, vexatious litigation
Companies: global wildlife center, global wildlife foundation

Randazza Seeking Sanctions Against Righthaven Lawyer For Going Through Charade Yet Again

from the again? dept

Two bits of Righthaven news here. Last week, we wrote about the company losing yet again and being told to pay legal fees, yet again. We noted that the minutes from the court had mentioned that Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, had been scolded by the judge. Well, now the full transcript of the hearing is out, and it's worth the read (embedded below). Basically, the whole hearing was totally unnecessary, and was in part due to Mangano's failure to file the necessary documents on time (over which he appears to be confused). Either way, the whole hearing was pointless, and it's pretty clear that the judge is fed up and upset that such a hearing had to even be held in the first place. It sounds like the only reason sanctions weren't issued against Mangano is that the judge is not a fan of sanctioning attorneys at all, but suggests he came close in this case:

Well, I quite frankly think, Mr. Mangano, that you could have handled this a lot better if you would have placed yourself in the position of somebody other than yourself by looking at it and seeing what hoops you were making opposing counsel jump through that are totally unnecessary.

I have an extraordinary dislike for assessing attorneys' fees against attorneys, and I am not going to assess them against you under 1927. But I can tell you right now that I am right on the cusp of doing that.

I think you could have been a lot more civil and a lot more understanding about this. And I don't like to impose sanctions against attorneys, because I think it lives with them for a long time.

What happens to your client is another matter, and I am really not concerned with that. But I am telling you right now, you've got more stuff to do in this Court, and you better start thinking in terms of civility if you don't want me to jump on you with both feet.

While Mangano may have personally dodged a bullet in Colorado, that doesn't mean he gets to avoid similar problems back in Nevada. There, the Randazza Legal Group (who was also involved in the case above, and many, many other Righthaven cases) has filed for direct sanctions against Mangano, in yet another Righthaven case, noting that Righthaven has lost on standing so many times, that it's vexatious litigation to move forward with another lawsuit:

The fact is that after Mr. Mangano and his client lost the exact same argument eight times, Mangano still persisted in forcing this defendant to litigate the same issue a ninth time. It is the Defendants' position that perhaps the first time that Mangano signed pleadings in direct contravention with the 9th Circuit’s holding in Silvers, it could have been a forgivable attempt. The same may have been true for the second and third times, with declining defensibility. When it came to being told eight times that he brought an unsupportable claim before the court, Mr. Mangano under a clear obligation to exercise some degree of client control; to refuse to bring the exact same arguments; or to dismiss a case with an inescapable outcome, such as this one, rather than to force a defendant to litigate the same exact issue a ninth time on grounds identical to the previous eight defeats. Forcing this issue nine times had no effect except to punitively impose litigation expenses on this Defendant. This Defendant deserves to be made whole for the expenses incurred due to that misconduct.

I would imagine that it can't be much fun to be a Righthaven lawyer at this point in time.

Filed Under: copyright, sanctions, shawn mangano, vexatious litigation
Companies: righthaven

Sanctions Sought Against Righthaven's Lawyers For Not Dismissing Remaining Cases

from the make-it-stop dept

In its continuing effort to put the final nail in the coffin of Righthaven, the Randazza Legal Group has now filed for sanctions against Righthaven's lawyers. The filing argues that, given the multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions slamming Righthaven's legal strategy and specifically ruling that Righthaven has no standing to sue, while also questioning if there even is any infringement here at all, Righthaven has a duty to dismiss its remaining cases:

Righthaven’s scheme has been rejected nationwide. Within this District, Courts had ruled four times that Righthaven did not have standing to sue its defendants – and that its amendments to the SAA made after filing suit were ineffective – just between June 14 and June 23, 2011.4 To the extent any legitimate question of law existed about Righthaven’s standing to sue in the first place, considering this Circuit’s precedent in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Corp., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), and Sybersound Records, Incorporated v. UAV Corporation, 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), that doubt should have been resolved in June upon Righthaven’s fourth adverse ruling on standing. Yet, only days away from Halloween, the Defendants in this action continue to bear the costs of litigation establishing Righthaven’s lack of standing. This District has conclusively settled this exact issue, and Righthaven’s consistent argument to the contrary can no longer be advanced in good faith. Righthaven and its Counsel have a duty to dismiss this case, and not to waste the Court’s time or the Defendant’s time and resources in making the exact same arguments, which have been rejected again, and again, and again, and again.

The filing notes that continuing with these other lawsuits isn't just a waste of everyone's time, but reaches the level of vexatious litigation, by pursuing such cases in obvious bad faith. In the case at hand, involving a site called NewsBlaze, Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, has been trying to argue that, since its original motion to dismiss didn't bring up the standing issue, it can't be added later. It appears that Righthaven is also trying to re-argue the standing issue to some extent, though as this filing notes, that's settled law in this court:

Righthaven is precluded from further arguing that it has standing to bring this action under the SAA, and that its amendments executed after filing suit are effective, by the doctrine of issue preclusion – formerly known as collateral estoppel. When an issue has been fully and actually litigated, as these issues have been ad nauseam in this District, a party is barred from relitigating the issue.

Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?

Filed Under: copyright, sanctions, vexatious litigation
Companies: righthaven