Archive Page 2

PACER Class Action Lawsuit – National Veterans Legal Services Program et al v United States

PACER Class Action Lawsuit – National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States
EventHorizon1984
17 May 2017

 

“Paying too much for PACER? You could get an email notice later this spring to join a class action”
Amanda Bronstad
In PACER Suit, a Class Action Even Defense Lawyers Can Love

 

Need quick online access to Federal Court records? Then you want PACER (pacer.gov).

What is PACER?

“Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator. PACER is provided by the Federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.”

“The Federal Judiciary has developed a Next Generation (NextGen) Case Management/ Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system that will allow you to use the same account for both PACER and electronic filing access”

“The PACER Case Locator is a national index for U.S. district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts. A subset of information from each case is transferred to the PACER Case Locator server each night”

“PACER is available to anyone who registers for an account.

The more than one million PACER users include attorneys, pro se filers, government agencies, trustees, data collectors, researchers, educational and financial institutions, commercial enterprises, the media, and the general public.”

PACER registration is free, but there is a fee for document access.

“All registered agencies or individuals are charged a user fee of $0.10 per page. This charge applies to the number of pages that results from any search, including a search that yields no matches (one page for no matches).”

“The schedule places a cap on the per-page charge, with a maximum $3, the equivalent of 30 pages, for electronic access to any single document. For example, a 50 page document that would cost $5 at $0.10 a page is capped at 30 pages and only costs $3. Users will receive the entire 50-page document but are only charged $3. Each attachment in CM/ECF sites is considered a separate document. Therefore, the cap will apply to each attachment over 30 pages separately.”

“The PACER Service Center bills quarterly and sends a statement by mail or email. Fees are waived when usage is less than $15 for the quarter.”

Why the fees for public documents?

In 1988, the Judiciary sought appropriations from the U.S. Congress in order to provide electronic public access to court records. However, Congress did not provide the funds and instead directed the Judiciary to fund the initiative through user fees. As a result, the program relies exclusively on fee revenue.

Are these fees reasonable? On 21 April 2016, the National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and the Alliance For Justice presented the case “that PACER’s fee schedule is higher than necessary to cover the costs of operating PACER.”

A few months later, on 24 January 2017, “U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in the District of Columbia approved the” ‘class action lawsuit.’

The nineteen (19) page document ends with:

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted, with minor modifications to the proposed class definition. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge

Date: January 24, 2017

 

Of course, notice of this event reached our email box on 16 May 2017.

 

  Gmail - PACER Fees - Notice of Class Action Lawsuit 70

 

Of course, settlement talks began in March. And according to a 11 March 2017 article, all parties were “to report back to the court no later than April 21.

Did we mention it’s May?

/*
“One of those hobbies of mine, is studying laws. The laws you used to be paid to enforce.”
Detective Robert Goren

cookie
//

EverQuest II – Tell Us What You Think!

EverQuest II – Tell Us What You Think!
EventHorizon1984
6 March 2017

 

“Essentially, it’s another timesink for end-game players”
Philip Kollar
Touring the living remains of an 11-year-old MMO

 

Surveys regarding EverQuest II are few. The last time any here received an EverQuest II survey, the previous owner got hacked.

Years later, here’s what showed up in the Gmail box.

 

Tell Us What You Think

The survey is short.

EQ2 Survey 1
All properties of Daybreak Game Company have been suffering outages, since 2 January 2017.

Daybreak Games 20170102

Meaning question number five should have been a no-brainer, for management.

EQ2 Survey 2

Is San Diego based Daybreak Game Company really looking to improve customer service? Is this merely a method to placate the dwindling user base?

Or is the owner of Daybreak Game Company, Columbus Nova, looking for an excuse to offload the EverQuest franchise?

Time will tell.

/*
EverQuest co-creator John Smedley is leading a new San Diego-based studio for Amazon Game Studios
15 February 2017

cookie
//

Digital Homicide Lawsuits Click Bait

Digital Homicide Lawsuits Click Bait
EventHorizon1984
23 September 2016
17 October 2016 UPDATED

 

You must take a year off, one of these days, before you’re old and tired and weighed down by responsibility. Go away somewhere, and read. Read all the important books. Educate yourself, then you’ll see the world in a different way.Helon Habila

Coming back a year later, some things remain the same. It’s Fall, and lawsuits are in the air.

If you’re into computer games, and comment on games, this lawsuit is for you.

The Digital Trends article, “Steam Removes All Of Digital Homicide’s Games After It Sues 100 Users,” is one of hundreds of articles on the subject of Digital Homicide‘s current lawsuit. A riveting case of online “Harassment,” “Stalking,” “Criminal Damage,” and “Criminal Impersonation,” by 100 people.

Or as the article puts it:

“Digital Homicide doesn’t take criticism lightly. The filings indicate that James Romine, one-half of the Romine Brothers, who are Digital Homicides development team, sued 100 Steam users, alleging personal injury claims arising from online comments posted by defendants.”

YouTube personality SidAlpha has detailed commentary on the subject. And he supplied copies of the Court documents, for United States District Court For The District Of Arizona case CV-16-03092-PHX-ESW (or 2:2016-cv-03092), James Oliver Romine Jr v. Jane/John Doe 1 through 100.

But readers are probably aware that this is not the first lawsuit filed in 2016 by Digital Homicide.

 

“Let’s do it again.”
Seven Days (1998-2001)

On 4 March 2016, James O. Romine Jr. aka Digital Homicide, filed a civil lawsuit against James Nicholas Stanton aka Jim Sterling. The United States District Court, District of Arizona, case # 2:16-cv-00604-JJT, Romine v. Stanton. This was also well covered. It’s “was” as within two months it became old news. That Court case was freshened up and trotted out when Digital Homicide’s second lawsuit hit the news cycle. Here’s how Mr. Romine characterized the civil complaint, word for word:

When The Defendant falsely accused The Plaintiff and caused damage to reputation, damage to product, loss of product, and causing severe emotional distress to The Plaintiff, The Plaintiff has the right to receive restitution for these damages. The statements that have been made on the Internet by The Defendant have resulted in criticism and condemnation by the public towards The Plaintiff. These statements have been made in reckless disregard for duty of care that all United States Persons are legally required to follow.

Using our trusty PACER account to dust off that case, here’s a redacted copy of the docket. As of 23 September 2016 17 October 2016. With links to copies of the Court documents.

 

Civil Docket as of 20160923-Header

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/04/2016 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number PHX169280 filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 2 REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. Pro se parties must promptly notify the Clerks Office, in writing, if there is a change in designated e-mail address or mailing address. (BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX169280. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge John J. Tuchi. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-16-00604-PHX-JJT. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 4 Summons Issued as to James Nicholas Stanton at case opening. (BAS) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/28/2016 5 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr: Proof of Service re: Summons and Complaint upon James Nicholas Stanton on 3/15/2016. (REK) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
04/01/2016 6 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 1 Complaint by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
04/04/2016 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 1 Complaint by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
04/05/2016 8 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED granting the Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (Doc. 7 ). Defendant Stanton shall have until 30 days after the date of this Order to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 6 ) as moot. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 4/5/16.(JAMA) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/13/2016 9 ***STRICKEN by (Doc. 10 )–AMENDED COMPLAINT against James Nicholas Stanton filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (ATD) (77 pages) Modified on 4/15/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/15/2016 10 ORDER striking Plaintiff’s 9 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may file a Motion to Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Rule 15.1(a) by April 27, 2016. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 04/15/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
04/27/2016 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(REK) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
05/04/2016 12 ***Lodged at 15 because of Motion at 13 *** MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Standing, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6) by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of James Stanton and Attachments 1-5)(Hartman, Bradley) Modified on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 13 *MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct text on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 14 *RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct event on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 15 *FILED at (Doc. 19 ) pursuant to 18 Order–LODGED Proposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re: 13 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12] . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of James Stanton and Attachments 1-5)(Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct text re: motion types on 5/5/2016 (REK). Modified on 5/10/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/09/2016 16 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 17 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (after the fact) for Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. 11 ) by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 18 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant may file his motion to dismiss not to exceed 22 pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to file the document lodged at Document 15. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 5/10/16.(KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 19 * MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Standing by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(KGM) *Modified to correct motion type on 5/10/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 20 RESPONSE to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016 21 *Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX171860. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: MC-16-00045-PHX-DLR. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. *This was docketed in this case in error* (Entered: 05/11/2016)
05/11/2016 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to 20 Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff’s Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/11/2016 23 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for 22 Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/11/2016 24 *(Filed at (Doc. 31 )–LODGED Proposed Amendment to Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss re: 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, 23 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) Modified on 6/28/2016 (LSP). (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/13/2016 25 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
05/16/2016 26 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Length of Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 17 ). (See attached Order for details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 5/16/16.(JAMA) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/16/2016 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (REK) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/16/2016 28 *LODGED Proposed Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint re: 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (REK) Modified on 6/28/2016 (LSP). (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/31/2016 29 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
06/28/2016 30 ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and granting 23 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. The Clerk shall file the document currently lodged at (Doc. 24 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 27 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/28/16.(LSP) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 31 AMENDED RESPONSE to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (LSP) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
07/11/2016 32 Second RESPONSE to Motion (Titled: Motion in Response to Dismissal and Amendment to Motion in Response to Dismissal as Affidavit of Opposition) re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (2 pages) (REK) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
09/27/2016 33 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)   (Entered: 09/28/2016)
10/04/2016 34 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 33 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartmen, Bradley) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
10/11/2016 35 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 33 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (REK) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

 

As you might expect, this the ‘jockeying for position’ phase.

Document 29:

“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the Supplemental Memorandum [Doc 28] is an impermissible sur-reply. Plaintiff merely repeats arguments already made in response to the Motion to Dismiss and cites new cases not within Defendant’s reply brief. The motion should be denied.”

Document 30:

“At issue are pro se Plaintiff James Oliver Romine’s Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 22), Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 23), and Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint (Doc. 27), to which Defendant James Nicholas Stanton filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 29).”

Document 31:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint which is futile for the reasons stated within this Motion In Response to Motion for Dismissal.”

Document 32:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests that The Court accept The Plaintiff’s Motion In Response to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and The Plaintiff’s Amendment to Motion in Response to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as The Plaintiff’s Opposition to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This is only submitted as the term “Opposition” was not specifically stated in those two documents. The Plaintiff was unaware if this was a required statement and felt it may need to be stated officially. Apologies if this is obvious and unnecessary.”

Document 33:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests that The Court accept this Motion for Leave to Amended Complaint. Attachment T1 shows where The Plaintiff misquoted the proper code which was believed to be US Code. US Code 28 4101 was mistaken for ARS 12-541. The original code was cited from Cornell University’s law website. The Plaintiff has just learned of this discrepancy and requests to submit an Amended Complaint in regards. This is the only change requested. If this motion is granted, The Plaintiff will submit the properly edited document in a second motion. The Plaintiff did not wish to cause excess work for the Clerk of the Court with another copy of the 79 page document if this Motion was denied.”

Document 34:

“Defendant James Stanton responds in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 33]. Defendant objects to the Motion for Leave to Amend because it is improper and untimely while a Motion to Dismiss is pending and also because the proposed amendment is futile.”

Document 35:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Reply to Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint/Correction be accepted as there was an error on strike through on the original document.”

 

At this rate, we guess the really good stuff will begin in 2017.

/*

UPDATED 17 October 2016

Inclusion of Documents 33, 34, 35.

/*
“And if you get hurt (if you get hurt)
By the little things I say
I can put that smile back on your face
Ooh, and it’s alright and it’s coming along
We gotta get right back to where we started from”
Maxine Nightingale (1975), “Right Back Where We Started From,” Slap Shot (1977)

cookie
//


August 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.