Posts Tagged 'United States District Court'

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
//

The Corri McFadden eDrop-Off Chicago LLC Lawsuits Drag On

The Corri McFadden eDrop-Off Chicago LLC Lawsuits Drag On
EventHorizon1984
8 August 2013

There have been topics of greater interest to write about.  For example the new Doctor for the science fiction television series Doctor Who.  Or the fascinating article Space-Time Loops May Explain Black Holes.  Or the latest reveal by Sony Online Entertainment about the EverQuest Next project, and the beta sign-up.

Alas we’re goofing off playing the Dragon’s Prophet open beta, so please excuse the following reheated leftover.  And yes, “Drag On”, pun intended.

A few things have happened with the two Corri McFadden lawsuits:

The case in Illinois is stayed, pending resolution of the California case.

On 20 May 2013 there was “Dominique R. Shelton’s — lead counsel for Plaintiffs eDrop-Off Chicago LLC and Corri McFadden (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) — departure from Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP“.  And the 14 June 2013 declarations:

WHEREAS, the other primary partner representing Plaintiffs, Mark Durbin, announced his departure from Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP last week;

WHEREAS, the issue of Plaintiffs’ representation going forward has yet to be resolved and Plaintiffs need additional time to consider their options.

There was a proceeding held on 29 July 2013, but those contents are not available to the public until later this year.

TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on Monday, July 29, 2013; 9:57 A.M. Court Reporter: Wil S. Wilcox, phone number 213-290-2849. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/26/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/5/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/3/2013. (Wilcox, Wil) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

We’re taking a leap of faith that Corri McFadden will have legal representation before that transcript is released.

The departure of both Corri McFadden’s attorneys is curious …

FIVE DAYS EARLIER

15 May 2013

Judge George H. Wu opened the “Initial Tentative Ruling” with:

This case has been a case study in strategic procedural maneuvers – some shrewd and some, perhaps, ill-advised. The present proceeding maintains that hallmark.

To recap, the Plaintiffs Corri McFadden and eDrop-Off Chicago LLC cause of actions are:

  • First Cause of Action – Violation of the Lanham Act – Federal false Advertising, Unfair Competition, and False Designation of Origin
  • Second Cause of Action – Illinois Unfair Trade Practices
  • Third Cause of Action – Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
  • Fourth Cause of Action – Defamation
  • Fifth Cause of Action – Trade Libel
  • Sixth Cause of Action – Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations
  • Seventh Cause of Action – Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
  • Eighth Cause of Action – Breach of Contract
  • Ninth Cause of Action – Promissory Estoppel
  • Tenth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Eleventh Cause of Action -Declaratory Relief

Judge George H. Wu proceeded to the Anti-SLAPP issue:

“A. Anti-SLAPP as to the Now-Superseded Original Complaint”
“Of course, this entire question of whether Midley should be awarded fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) with respect to the initial complaint would be pointless in any respect if Midley is able to successfully demonstrate an entitlement to fees in connection with the FAC. It is to that analysis, therefore, that the Court now turns.

B. Anti-SLAPP Directed at the FAC
The first question that must be answered is whether California’s anti-SLAPP law (the only one Midley has attempted to use in its motion) would even apply to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs argue that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to claims under federal law or to the two claims they have specifically asserted under Illinois statutory law. They also allege that the remaining state law claims – at least claims 4 through 10 – should be interpreted under Illinois law because of choice of law principles.”

The abbreviation “FAC” stands for “First Amended Complaint.”

The abbreviation “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”

Judge George H. Wu ruled:

“1. Lanham Act”
“The answer is simplest with respect to Plaintiffs’ one (or two 11) federal claim(s). Midley could not prevail on its anti-SLAPP motion insofar as Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim is concerned because “the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal law causes of action.”

11  Claim 11 is a claim for declaratory relief in which Plaintiffs invoke the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201.”

“2. Illinois Statutory Claims”
“the Court will not apply California’s anti-SLAPP statute to Plaintiffs’ second and third claims.”

“3. Common Law Claims”
“at this point in time, the Court concludes California’s anti-SLAPP statute would apply to the common law claims Plaintiffs have advanced in the FAC.”

We have a PDF copy of the 14 May 2013 Initial Tentative Ruling here.

We’re loosely interpreting this ruling as, First, Second, Third Cause of Action are not subject to the California anti-SLAPP statute.  Three for the Plaintiff, Corri McFadden and eDrop-Off Chicago LLC.  While all other Cause of Actions are subject to the California anti-SLAPP statute.  Eight for the Defendant, Midley INC.

What does this mean?  According to the writers of the California anti-SLAPP statute:

“This bill states that a cause of action against a person arising out of the person’s exercise of his or her constitutional rights of petition and free speech “in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike,” unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a “probability” that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.

Defendants who prevail on the motion to strike are entitled to attorney fees and costs. This provision does not apply to “enforcement actions” brought by public prosecutors. Plaintiffs may be awarded attorney fees if the court determines that the special motion to strike was “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”

Upon the filing of a special motion to strike, discovery shall be stayed, unless authorized by the court.”

The rough translation, Plaintiffs Corri McFadden and eDrop-Off Chicago LLC will be facing California’s anti-SLAPP statute for eight cause of actions, and not the Illinois anti-SLAPP statute.

This is a classic SLAPP suit – strategic litigation against public participation – and McFadden should have to face California’s tough anti-SLAPP law, which lets defendants move to strike frivolous lawsuits and recover costs and fees if they win,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “The plaintiffs set the stage by choosing to file their suit in California. The court should finish the case there as well, protecting Purseblog.com’s speech rights by applying California law.
Electronic Frontier Foundation, 29 May 2012

Or the Ken White of Popehat loose translation, as applicable to California:

“you’ve sued me for defamation and BIFD. I file an anti-SLAPP motion. First, that stays discovery in the case — no more bleeding me dry or harassing me with depositions and document demands and third-party subpoenas. Second, once I file the motion, your die is cast as a plaintiff — even if you drop your suit at this point, I can insist on pressing forward, getting a ruling, and seeking the fees …”

20 May 2013

FIVE DAYS LATER

Following this 15 May 2013 Initial Tentative Ruling, on 20 May 2013 and 14 June 2013 Corri McFadden’s principle lawyers left Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

To be continued …

/*

DP1 Dragon’s Prophet
I thought you said this was gonna be easy.
Snails, Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

/*

Technorati Profile
Add to Technorati Favorites
EventHorizon1984 Log
Add to Technorati Favorites

cookie
//

Corri McFadden eDrop Off v. Midley Cases 2:12-cv-04095-GW-FMO and 1:12-cv-03632

Corri McFadden eDrop Off v. Midley Cases 2:12-cv-04095-GW-FMO and 1:12-cv-03632
EventHorizon1984
24 March 2013

This month we received a flurry of new hits 1 referencing these two lawsuits:

Curious about the hits, we looked up the cases on PACER.  As expected, the cases remain ongoing.

  • Illinois
    • “MOTION by Defendant Midley, Inc. to vacate And Reschedule Status Hearing
      (Unopposed) (Citera, Francis) (Entered: 10/09/2012)”
    • “MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:Status hearing held on and
      continued to 4/3/2013 at 09:30 AM. (or, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)”
  • California
    • “Motion Hearing held before Judge George H Wu: Settlement is not reached.” 10/29/2012
    • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Midley Inc, Does 1-10
      inclusive (Discovery) 1 ,filed by Plaintiffs eDrop Off Chicago LLC, Corri McFadden
      (pj) (pj).
      (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/26/2012: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B,
      # 3 Declaration C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (pj). (Additional
      attachment(s) added on 12/4/2012: # 7 Exhibit G Part 1, # 8 Exhibit G Part 2, # 9
      Exhibit G Part 3, # 10 Exhibit G Part 4, # 11 Exhibit G Part 5) (pj). (Additional
      attachment(s) added on 12/4/2012: # 12 Exhibit G Part 6, # 13 Exhibit G Part 8, # 14
      Exhibit G Part 8, # 15 Exhibit G Part 9, # 16 Declaration G Part 10) (pj). (Additional
      attachment(s) added on 12/4/2012: # 17 Exhibit G Part 11, # 18 Exhibit G Part 12, #
      19 Exhibit G Part 13 1 of 2, # 20 Exhibit G Part 13 2 of 2, # 21 Exhibit G Part 14, # 22
      Exhibit G Part 15) (pj). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2012: # 23 Exhibit G
      Part 16, # 24 Exhibit G Part 17 1 of 2, # 25 Exhibit G Part 17 2 of 2, # 26 Exhibit G
      Part 18 1 of 2, # 27 Exhibit G Part 18 2 of 2, # 28 Exhibit G Part 19, # 29 Exhibit G
      Part 20, # 30 Declaration G Part 21) (pj). (Additional attachment(s) added on
      12/4/2012: # 31 Exhibit G-1 PART 1, # 32 Exhibit G-1 PART 2, # 33 Declaration G-1
      PART 3, # 34 Exhibit G-1 PART 4) (pj). (Additional attachment(s) added on
      12/4/2012: # 35 Exhibit H, # 36 Exhibit I, # 37 Exhibit J) (pj). (Entered: 11/08/2012)” (Ed. The Amended Complaint was included, but not the Exhibits.)
    • TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on Monday, October 29, 2012; 9:11 A.M..” 11/08/2012
    • “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Application for Leave to File
      Brief Amicus Curiae Brief Opposition” 11/08/2012
    • The Amicus Curiae’s application is DENIED.” 12/03/2012

Regardless that the cases remain ongoing, there are interesting tidbits in the November “First Amended Complaint”, and in the October 29, 2012 transcript.

“Anyone care to guess who is included in Does 1-10?”
24 July 2012 03:02 PM
Exhibit G-1

Dominque R. Shelton and Erin L. Pfaff, “Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edrop-Off Chicago LLC and Corri McFadden”, dropped Nancy R. Burke, but have not dropped the “DOES 1-10 inclusive” from the case.  As they have stated:

  • “6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, partnership, limited liability company, or otherwise, of Doe Defendants 1-10, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the wrongful conduct herein alleged, and that such wrongful conduct caused harm to Plaintiffs.”
  • “many others who Plaintiffs do not know their true identities, but will amend the complaint to include them once the identities are known”

When the “individual, corporate, associate, partnership, limited liability company” etal described elsewhere in various legal documents are excluded, we’re left with some names.

Just the Amended Complaint document contains the “names” of:

  • Four (4) Edrop Off customers
  • Six (6) posters to Plaintiff exhibited thread(s)
  • One (1) poster to Plaintiff exhibited thread(s), named in Exhibit G

And the attached Exhibits contain many many more “names”.

  • “evidenced by over 1,000 (and counting) responsive comments”
  • “spawned hundreds of additional defamatory comments”

At this moment the answer to ‘who is a Doe?’ is pure speculation.  Only the Plaintiff (Corri McFadden, “Edrop-Off Chicago LLC”) attorneys know if any or none of the names in the Amended Complaint and Exhibits are potential “Does”, or merely witnesses.

Should the California case reach the discovery phase, then expect real names on the complaint.

As for that PurseBlog link that Ina published, It’s still active.
18 May 2012

Then there’s the matter of mentioning the specific web addresses of the threads known as “First Defamatory Thread” and the “Second Defamatory Thread.”  (Ed. The Plaintiff presents those addresses in available to public court documents.)

The Plaintiff Attorneys link those threads to this statement, “as well as false and defamatory comments posted on other online discussion forums that hyperlink to the defamatory thread.”  Which presents the possibility of posters “on other online discussion forums” being flagged as potential “Does.”  Not to mention the possibility of “other online discussion forums” being tagged as “Does.”

There are a few “other” websites that have posted those thread addresses.  Our unofficial survey indicates most of those “other” websites and threads have vanished. The ones that remain … we’ll see what happens at discovery.

“you might really still want to settle this case.  In the end this is just going to go on and on.  And there is going to be a huge bill at the end.”
Judge George H. Wu, 29 October 2012

The transcript of the forty page 29 October 2012 Court proceeding provides a bit of insight into the settlement process.  And costs.

  • Dominque R. Shelton, for Plaintiffs:
    • “we wrote in our confidential brief to Magistrate Olguin that we would be willing to walk away.  And it’s also a statement that PurseBlog sent us letters saying we understand that in putting your demand you are trying to get to a walk-away which is unacceptable to them.”
  • Ian C. Ballon, for Defendants:
    • “my client doesn’t want to accept the walk-away at this point.  Because while we had proposed it many times and we had several runs of settlement negotiations, the walk-away proposal came once the legal fees exceeded $300,000.  At that point my client wanted some compensation.”
    • “the reason we didn’t have the mediation — we were going to mediate even knowing that the plaintiff wanted a walk-away.  When the plaintiff changed their position and sent us a letter saying that our position now is we want you to pay $500,000”

Taking an overly simplistic view, over a period of five months at two venues the Defendants legal fees were “$300,000.”  Or $60,000 a month.  While the Plaintiffs legal fees might be “$500,000”, or $100,000 a month.

With the case at the ten month mark, imagine what the legal fees are now.

As Judge George H. Wu put it:

  • “After this point in time it’s going to get even more expensive, because you are talking about two litigations, one here and one in Illinois.”  29 October 2012

THE COURT: Before I do that, what’s the status at this point in time of the Illinois litigation, anything, or is it still stayed or what?
Ms. Shelton: It’s stayed pending resolution of this action, Your Honor.
Mr. Ballon: Your Honor, it’s not actually stayed. The plaintiffs’ have agreed to continue the hearing in that case after this hearing.
THE COURT: Okay. But what’s the pending hearing there?
Mr. Ballon: No pending hearing.
THE COURT: There is no pending hearing.
Mr. Ballon: There is no pending hearing.

Incidentally the transcript contains mentions of actions involving SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP, Communications Decency Act, discovery, case dismissal, case amendment, posts, related cases, fascinating discourse, and a good sprinkling of common sense.  Far too much to give a good summary.  If you want a “feeling” of the case, we recommend reading this document.

We’ll close this article, with Judge George H. Wu‘s closing words:

“The mere fact that some party is unreasonable in their settlement doesn’t necessarily mean that there is going to be an adverse consequence because they may ultimately prevail.  So that’s just what happens in a settlement.  And sometimes one party that has the better case decides not to settle and they lose.

That’s not uncommon too.  So all that being said, the parties should seriously talk about trying to resolve the case.  And if you want to I can get involved.  I don’t mind getting involved but you have to have a written permission from your clients.

Okay.  So we have future dates now.  We have everything.  So go ahead and try to settle.  But if not, then there is the dates that we have.”

The cases continue.

Stay.

Continue.

/*

(1)  See:

  1. eDrop-Off Corri McFadden California and Illinois Lawsuit Dockets
  2. Corri McFadden eDrop-Off Chicago LLC California Lawsuit Motion To Dismiss DENIED

/*

“Stop. Stop. Stop. Don’t keep on saying “with all due respect.” It’s really kind of insulting.”
George H. Wu, United States District Judge
Case 2:12-cv-04095-GW-FMO Document 97 Filed 11/08/12
eDrop Off Chicago LLC and Corri McFadden vs. Nancy R. Burke, Midley, Inc. d/b/a Purseblog.com, and Does 1-10 inclusive

/*

Technorati Profile
Add to Technorati Favorites
EventHorizon1984 Log
Add to Technorati Favorites

cookie
//


June 2018
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Archives

Categories

Amazon