Malibu Media, LLC — New “Copyright Troll” on the Block.

There seems to be a new production company who has decided that it is a better business model for them to start suing internet users (e.g., copyright trolling) rather than selling their cheap flicks on the internet one by one. The company name is Malibu Media, LLC, and while the actual “film” allegedly downloaded probably varies from case-to-case, it appears as if “Tiffany Teenagers in Love” seems to be the primary title they are using in their lawsuits.

What surprises me is that while this is a new “troll” (using the term loosely,) the local counsel they are using suggests to me that the same entity [behind the Patrick Collins, Inc., K-Beech, Inc., NuCorp, Inc., Raw Films, Ltd., Zero Tolerance, etc. cases] is also behind this case. In other words, this is simply a new client climbing on the bandwagon looking to cash in on the ongoing mass extortion scheme. The rules, however, have not changed.

Pasted below is a list of the cases, separated by the court in which the case was filed in, and who the local counsel is. I have dealt with each one of these guys before, so as far as I am concerned, this is just one more troll to add to the list of companies who are suing defendants.  I have included the newer filings of Raw Films, Ltd. to show that these are the same attorneys.

California Central District Court – Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-10 (Case no. 2:12-cv-01647)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-10 (Case no. 2:12-cv-01675)
Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 1-10 (Case no. 2:12-cv-01653)

Virginia Eastern District Court – David / Wayne O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00160)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00161)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00163)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-27 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00165)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-08 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00166)

California Southern District Court – Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi

Malibu Media, LLC. v. John Does 1-13 (Case no. 3:12-cv-00358)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case no. 3:12-cv-00362)
Malibu Media, LLC. v. John Does 1-15 (Case no. 3:12-cv-00369)
Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 1-11 (Case no. 3:12-cv-00368)

Colorado District Court – Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-29 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00397)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00399)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-30 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00402)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-10 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00405)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-27 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00406)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00407)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00408)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-27 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00409)

District Of Columbia District Court – Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-5 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00233)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-16 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00235)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-11 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00237)
Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 1-3 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00234)
Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 1-19 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00236)

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court – Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case no. 2:12-cv-00664)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-17 (Case no. 2:12-cv-00665)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-10 (Case no. 2:12-cv-00666)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-11 (Case no. 2:12-cv-00667)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22 (Case no. 2:12-cv-00668)

On a personal note (obviously not legal advice, as each plaintiff above handles cases differently, and each person’s situation is different): We have seen these attorneys before in other cases. If you receive a copy of a subpoena from your ISP indicating that you have been implicated as a John Doe Defendant in any one of these cases, you’ll probably be instructed in the letter to file a motion to quash. As you know from my MANY articles on this blog, you know my opinion that such motions have been a waste of time for defendants (e.g., plaintiff attorney will claim that because you are not yet “named” as a defendant, you have no “standing” to file such a motion, etc., etc., etc.). More likely than not, you will not receive a letter from your ISP, and one of their creditor-like “bulldogs” will begin calling you and threatening to name you as a defendant unless you settled your case against them. They will make up odd numbers on the spot as to how much their “client” will settle for, but remember, these guys and gals (who often do not even sound sober and are probably sitting in a cubicle somewhere reading you a script) are not attorneys and likely do not have authority to settle your case. If you have spoken to me, you know my opinion is that 1) they shouldn’t even be calling you in the first place, and 2) you should not be discussing your case with them.

Read Full Post »

Congratulations to Cashman Law Firm, PLLC Clients – Attorneys Suffer Partial FRCP Rule 4(m) Dismissal in West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5,829 Case

[NOTE TO CLIENTS: Regarding the article below, if you are one of those who have been dismissed, I will be sending you a congratulations letter shortly, and I will tell you what the next steps are and what to expect from Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC.]

Congratulations to our clients who have been dismissed in the West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5829 case (1:11-cv-00057-CKK). I must say up front that NOT ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  In short, this dismissal is merely Judge Kollar-Kotelly enforcing her 5/11/2011 order where she ordered the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC to either name and serve the defendants identified in their 4/15 statement by 5/16 or else she will dismiss them on her own.  Like Judge Shadur has done to dispose with John Steele’s CP Productions v. Does case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois a few months back, Judge Kollar-Kotelly is employing the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m) to dismiss these defendants.

The case itself is still alive.

As for what to expect next, there are a series of dates to watch for.  Firstly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has set a 6/1 deadline for the plaintiffs to give her a status update as to the various Does still pending in the case.  Nothing of relevance will happen here.  Then, by 6/20/2011, plaintiff attorneys must either name and serve the defendants identified in their 6/1 statement or else she will dismiss them on her own just as she has done here.  Since they have a few days to inform the court of what they have done, we will likely see an order similar to the one we see today on 6/28/2011.

I have attached the order below for your viewing.  To those of you who are not one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients, please use the attached document to view whether your accused IP address is one of the IP addresses which are now dismissed.  If so, I congratulate you on your dismissal.

View this document on Scribd

Last, but not least, on an ethics note.  It has been brought to my attention that it is the practice of some of unscrupulous attorneys to send out what are known as “scare letters” demanding thousands of dollars, even after a dismissal.  While this is obviously not legal advice, if I received such a demand letter after being dismissed from a lawsuit such as this one, I would immediately contact Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s chambers at (202) 354-3340, and I would ask to fax in a copy of the letter I have received so that the court can be made aware should the plaintiff choose to send such a letter.

Read Full Post »