Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients now dismissed from the Maverick Entertainment Group v. Does case.

Congratulations to clients of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (and now former defendants in the case) who were dismissed today from the Maverick Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-2,115 case (1:10-cv-00569-BAH) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Those of us who have been following this case (along with our clients) had their alarms set to check the docket this morning for a dismissal, as the judge was very clear that today was the deadline for the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC to either name defendants or dismiss them according to the dictates of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4(m). This rule gives plaintiff attorneys 120 days to name and serve defendants or to dismiss them.

There was an interesting note in these dismissals, [and it was not the fact that along with the dismissals the plaintiff attorneys asked for yet another 120-day extension to name and serve the remaining defendants].

What was notoriously MISSING from the dismissals were the defendants who had Charter Communications as their ISP. As the documents below indicate, not one Charter defendant was dismissed.

While there is no obvious reason for this, because I get phone calls each day from various Doe Defendants, I learn which ISPs have production dates due in the near future, and Charter is one of them. Charter still has at least one subpoena request (with potentially hundreds of defendants) which they have not yet turned over to Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC. As far as I can recall, this subpoena is due at the end of August.

So for those of you who are Charter Communications subscribers, I would not be shocked or surprised that you have not yet been dismissed. It appears to me as if your plaintiff attorneys are waiting until the results are in (e.g., until they receive all the accused subscribers’ contact information) before they do the next round of dismissals, which I expect to include Charter Communications’ subscribers.

For those of you who are putative John Doe Defendants in this case, please look for your IP address in this document to determine whether you have been dismissed. If you have, allow me to congratulate you on your victory.

[scribd id=62386213 key=key-c0fsrw3a16k5qc91evr mode=list]

7 thoughts on “Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients now dismissed from the Maverick Entertainment Group v. Does case.”

  1. I was named in this suit, but have been dimissed. However I recieved my letter of settlement on July 22. Should I still proceed with settling in this case since it has been dismissed without prejudice?

  2. First of all, thank you for keeping us informed of the status of these lawsuits. This site has given me the most info regarding this issue.

    I am one of the does that got dismissed. I am not sure if I should be happy though. I am confused to say the least. My ISP, Roadrunner got subpoened. And as far as I know, since I did not quash the subpoena, the plaintiff has had my personal info for at least a month. Just by me receiving the letter from Roadrunner, I assume they where going along with the subpoena.

    Why would they dismiss me as a doe if presumably they already had my personal info?

  3. I’d received a settlement letter 2 weeks for $2500 by 8/24 (else $3500) to be dismissed from this suit. I assume DGW’s intent is to get as much settlement they can’t from the folks whose not aware of this dismissal.

    Now, since the case with voluntarily dropped without prejudice, what’s the likelihood DGW will sue the individual in their respective jurisidictions (ie. CA, IL)? As Comcast/etal had release the IP owners’ names, could they not try a do a 1 vs 500 Does in the state of IL encompassing all the subscribers in Illinois?

  4. Thank you, Robert Cashman, for all your hard work on these cases. Everytime a group gets dismissed, it’s a relief, even though until a couple of days ago, my IP address was not among those dismissed. This time, I’m in the dismissed group. I hope this stress causing situation can be put behind me and that those that are still waiting are awarded the same rightful dismissal.

  5. [T]hank you for your dedication, help and informative phone call as well as your sound advice. My ISP is also on this list of dismissed. I look forward in working with you again as life requires. Thank again so much.[] (Moderated to avoid C”H)

  6. How is it a victory if settlement letters are still being received with the possibility of lawsuit in home jurisdiction? Not arguing, just curious.

    1. One of the realities about these cases is that a copyright holder has a statute of limitation of three-years from the alleged date of infringement to sue a defendant in his home state. Often when a dismissal happens, it is “without prejudice” which means that a plaintiff can still sue a defendant in his home state. With so many defendants, sometimes 500+ or 5,000+ in one case, it is a simple mathematical fact that one plaintiff cannot sue so many defendants, and thus the risk of being sued becomes an “eenie meenie miney mo” calculation as to who the plaintiff will choose to sue. As for the letters, Preston, I am an advocate that the judges (e.g., through the judges’ chambers) should be made aware of these letters. Further, other than hiring an attorney and having us tell them to back off, there is no way to stop them from sending scare letters when they still have the right to sue you. In short, it is a victory because you are dismissed from the case. No $150,000 judgement is being threatened against you. All that is being threatened is maybe they might sue you sometime in the future. This is definitely a victory, albeit a bittersweet one because the lawsuit has gone away, but not necessarily the underlying problem of attorneys trying to solicit settlements from you. If you have any questions or need me to contact them on your behalf, feel free to contact me with further questions. -Rob

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *