Why Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities Should NOT Benefit From Copyright Laws.

Photo of John Steele while running Prenda Law Inc.

Copyright Trolls should be considered Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) because they do not create the videos giving them copyrights they sue to enforce.

Who is the “Real Party in Interest” in the Strike Three Holdings movie lawsuits?

Last night, I set out to explain the differences between the recent Strike Three Holdings ISP subpoena lawsuits and the Malibu Media lawsuits, but the similarities ended up haunting me.  Seeing yet again the makings of another Non-Practicing Entity copyright holder who is playing what is starting to look like a “corporate shell game,” I am again weighed down in wondering whether Strike 3 Holdings movie lawsuits (think, “Tushy.com [NSFW],” “Blacked.com [NSFW],” and “Vixen.com [NSFW]”) is really the old wolf — Malibu Media LLC — in sheep’s clothing.

What bothers me about each of these movie (or here, “adult film”) cases is the slick non-transparency.  Are these Non-Practicing Entities?  If you look up who the copyright holder is, who is actually the party filing the lawsuit (legally, the “real party in interest,”) and who the interested parties are in the lawsuit, you might start getting as concerned as I am about these lawsuits.

Attorney “Kidneys” about these Non-Practicing Entities.

From a lawyer’s perspective (my own attorney “kidneys”), it really bothers me that Non-Practicing Entity lawyers LIE to judges and courts now when they file lawsuits.  Maybe this has always been the case, and what do I know — I’ve only been a lawyer active in my field for ten years now — but law school took SO MANY STEPS to teach us to be moral and ethical. In order to be eligible to take the New York bar exam, we not only had to pass a [frankly, invasive] character and fitness review, but we needed to pass an ethics exam (the MPRE).  In that ethics exam, almost every answer to the exam was, “be ethical, turn that lawyer in to the authorities.”  This is what caused me to delve quite early into the legal malpractice field.

Our Legal System is BROKEN by Non-Practicing Entities, and the attorneys who represent unethical clients.

But our legal system breaks when a small few attorneys allow their Non-Practicing Entity clients to engage in deception, distortion, and outright lies, as I suspect is already happening with the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits.  Looking at the selection of each of the new lawyers that have been chosen to file cases, I can already see the outcome and how each of the cases will play out based on that particular lawyer’s proclivities and skillset.

Some of these lawyers are “new guys,” or “fresh meat” (as I jokingly call them) — not because I can take advantage of their ignorance of the law (or at least the ignorance of how copyright law is applied differently in each of the federal courts across the US), but because I know that they are local counsel to Non-Practicing Entities — entities who are centralized (and likely criminal). Thus, these Non-Practicing Entities and their attorneys will act as “empty shells” who follow the dictates those higher-up in the Non-Practicing Entity chain…  as we have seen before.

SIDE NOTE: Kudos to those local counsel who chose the ethical path, eventually.

Unrelated but relevant, I must note that a number of former “copyright troll” attorneys who have been local counsel to other Non-Practicing Entities are no longer “in the game,” so to speak.  They no longer file copyright infringement lawsuits for their masters, and they stood up and said “no” when their Non-Practicing Entity clients asked them to take part in activities that would have cost them their law licenses

I do take pride in commending these attorneys in taking a stand against their morally corrupt clients, and in a few cases, I know personally of a few attorneys who backed out of being local counsel and who likely saved their law licenses as a result.

Because many of these local counsel at one point were “fresh meat,” they took the copyright monetization (Non-Practicing Entity) client [I’ll describe the “NPE” term later] thinking that this would bring in needed revenue to their law firm.  They thought they would learn a lot, and they rationalized that they were on the “right side of the law.” 

This continued until they realized that they were representing a corrupted client, and then they were in too deep to drop them as a client.

Eventually, the copyright monetization (Non-Practicing Entity) client turned on them (think, “honor among thieves,“)  and told them to do something unethical.  Risking loss of what became their entire law firm’s focus, they were forced to continue on their path hoping that they would never be caught by the state bar. 

Eventually, in one particular case, their client stopped paying them their own commissions and they were left working for a client who was cheating them. I have spoken attorneys such as these on a number of occasions (many of these attorneys are the subject of past articles), and I hope to have contributed to their decision to leave their masters as a battered wife would leave her husband.

I am also happy to share that I have been screamed at by a number of attorneys who direct lawsuits (most notably, John Steele of Prenda Law Inc., now disbarred, and who is pictured at the top of this article) “for speaking to and advising his local counsel” as to their rights when their own Non-Practicing Entity client (Steele) put them in a precarious position. In sum (and this was supposed to be a side note), not all local counsel are bad people.  However, at the moment while Non-Practicing Entities are still suing defendants for copyright infringement, they know I believe they are on the wrong side of the law, and here is why.

Why the law requires the ENFORCEMENT OF TRANSPARENCY in copyright infringement / bittorrent-based lawsuits.

The point of this article is that the law requires transparency and disclosure when filing lawsuits, and judges tend to rely on the filings of the plaintiff attorneys (in an honest world, those representing the copyright holder).  However, when copyright monetization entities (e.g., RightsEnforcement, etc.) step as a buffer entity in between the copyright holder and the defendant, this creates a disparity in favor of the local “empty shell” attorney filing identical documents (serially, or over-and-over) on behalf of his “boss” (the attorney who is running the copyright troll lawsuit campaigns for each of his copyright holder clients). As a result, the individual accused John Doe Defendant is harmed by this disparity by being thrown into trying to defend against an elaborate copyright enforcement scheme which could ultimately cost him his entire life savings.

DISCLOSURE of Non-Practicing Entities can lead to an equal playing field.

I feel strongly that a copyright monetization company should openly and honestly disclose exactly who they are, what benefit the actual copyright holder is getting from the lawsuit, and who else has an interest in the outcome of the litigation.  At least then, the judge could understand who else this Non-Practicing Entity / monetization company is representing, and he could “tame” them and their tactics so that the accused downloaders (the “victims” of what will end up being a settlement extortion scheme) will at least have an equal playing field in order to defend themselves and the claims against them.

I don’t wear the pope hat.

And while writing this, I don’t want you to think that I am wearing the pope hat.  I started my law career on the wrong side of the law.  As a brand new attorney, I worked for a company that catered to Non-Practicing Entities — shell companies, all who ended up being one “Intellectual Ventures,” now a prolific patent troll. 

I observed the Non-Practicing Entity “shell companies” they used, and the games they played to purchase patents (or at least the rights to enforce them), only to turn from a harmless company to a patent troll with sharp teeth.

Needless to say, Intellectual Ventures turned “evil” (so to speak), and started enforcing their patents to “force” (I want to use the word extort) companies almost-remotely-maybe-infringing that patent into accepting a license so that Intellectual Ventures could take a mafia-share royalty off of each of that company’s profits.  So long as Intellectual Ventures (under their RPX Corp entity) received “tribute payments” in the form of a “membership fee” for entrance into their patent troll organization, they would not be sued by the patent holder (or the “Non-Practicing Entity” patent troll conglomerate organization who held the patents).

In short, I learned how to defend against copyright trolls by working on behalf a powerful patent troll [and if you want to read the articles I wrote on that topic and the RPX Corp (what Intellectual Ventures became), please feel free to visit my articles from 2008 on the topic].  I wasn’t very active at the time in blogging, but the articles are still interesting to read.

Why NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS should be applied to copyright trolls.

What is relevant to my experiences with Intellectual Ventures (and later, RPX Corp) was the concept of “Non-Practicing Entities,” or “NPEs.”  In patent litigation, a non-practicing entity is a corporate entity who enforces patents which it did not create.  Shortly after patent trolls and NPEs made a killing in the federal courts, the rules changed to make these kinds of lawsuits unprofitable. I believe that the same “Non-Practicing Entity (NPE)” status should be applied in the federal courts to copyright holders as well.

AND HERE IS WHY.

My point:  The copyright law gives copyright holders rights to enforce their copyrights.  The purpose of these rights are to benefit the copyright holders (to reward their creativity, their ingenuity, and their contribution to the arts).  When a slime and base organization comes in and purchases those copyright rights to benefit financially from the rights due the copyright holders, the law should not allow those Non-Practicing Entities to benefit as if they are the copyright holders.

WHY COPYRIGHT TROLL NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities never contributed anything to the arts.  They do not benefit society.  They do not benefit the copyright holders (who are often cheated by them or only receive a small piece of what could be theirs under the copyright laws).  They do not benefit the actors, writers, or artists who created the copyrighted work.  Rather, Non-Practicing Entities make their attorneys wealthy and they target and destroy the lives and the savings of thousands of households each year, separating the working class from their hard earned savings. So I ask you — should NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS be applied to bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits who are deceptively managed by these NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) conglomerates who only serves to monetize the copyrights of others for their own benefit?

RECENT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES (*UPDATED* AS OF 2/25/2020)

CALIFORNIA:

Recent Cases filed in the California Central District Court (as of 2/25/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:19-cv-02431, 2:19-cv-10671, 2:19-cv-10672, 2:19-cv-10677, 2:20-cv-00042)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.49.233.148 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10673)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.84.181.123 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10674)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.173.187.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01730)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.221.26 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01736)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Recent Cases filed in the California Northern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)

…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230 (Case No. 4:19-cv-08231)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 (Case No. 3:19-cv-08239)

Recent Cases filed in the California Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:19-cv-02452, 3:19-cv-02488, 3:20-cv-00209, 3:20-cv-00308, Case No. 3:20-cv-00067, 3:20-cv-00068)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)

CONNECTICUT:

Recent Case filed in the Connecticut District Court (as of 2/25.2020)  Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)

FLORIDA:

Recent Cases filed in the Florida Middle District Court (as of 2/25/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 35.138.167.172 (Case No. 8:19-cv-03100)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-03143)

Recent Case filed in the Florida Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-20499, 1:20-cv-20503, 1:20-cv-20517, 1:20-cv-20516, 1:20-cv-20506, 1:20-cv-20647)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

ILLINOIS:

Recent Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (as of 2/25/2020) 

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:19-cv-08148, 1:19-cv-08163, 1:20-cv-00773, 1:20-cv-01243, 1:20-cv-01301)
…v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 108.225.112 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00482)

MICHIGAN:

Recent Cases filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

NEVADA:

Recent Cases filed in the Nevada District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DOE IP Address 70.170.50.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00372)
Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DO IP Address 72.193.217.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00373)

NEW JERSEY:

Recent Case filed in the New Jersey District Court (as of 2/25/2020) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)

NEW YORK:

Recent Cases filed in the New York Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 67.245.246.132 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07256)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Recent Cases filed in the New York Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:19-cv-11466, 1:19-cv-11464, 1:20-cv-01435, 1:20-cv-01528, 1:20-cv-01529, 1:20-cv-01525, 1:20-cv-00554, 1:20-cv-00819)

Recent Case filed in the New York Western District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:20-cv-06113)

PENNSYLVANIA:

Recent Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 5:19-cv-06010)

VIRGINIA:

Recent Case filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.

State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

OTHER ARTICLES WRITTEN ON THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC LAWSUITS.

Below are articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC plaintiff:
Just The Facts: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC,” written on 11/5/2017

Everything you need to know in one page about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brand”) adult movie lawsuits and ISP subpoenas,” written on 11/5/2017

HUMOR: Did Strike 3 Just Call Their Defendant “John Doe Infringer”?” written on 2/20/2020

Why incorrect attorneys are listed on Strike 3 Holdings LLC case dockets,” written on 5/3/2019

How Similar are Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media Lawsuits?” written on 11/15/2017

Why Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities Should NOT Benefit From Copyright Laws,” written on 11/15/2017

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT THE 2019-2020 “MIAMI-DADE STRIKE 3” FLORIDA COUNTY COURT CASES:

INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARE USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.:

Strike 3 Holdings is NOT suing Miami-Dade County defendants for copyright infringement,” written on 10/31/2019

FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE ATTORNEYS BEHIND THE SCHEME

Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys in Miami-Dade Florida County Have a “Behind The Scenes” Shadow,” written on 1/20/2020

RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” WHICH ENDS UP FORCING THEM TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach,” written on 2/10/2020

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

    NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

    Did Strike 3 Just SUE SOMEONE CALLED “John Doe Infringer”?

    strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

    Once in a while, an overzealous attorney makes an error which is simply funny.  Calling an accused defendant a “John Doe Infringer” is such an error. I noticed this when I was compiling the most updated list of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits.

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS HAS A NEW APPROACH: CALLING THE DEFENDANTS “JOHN DOE INFRINGER” BEFORE THEY ARE FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

    john-doe-infringer John Doe Infringer
    viarami / Pixabay

    SHOW ME.

    Take a look (below) at the recent list of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed in each court.  You will notice that the defendant is typically called “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [IP ADDRESS]“.  Why? Because Strike 3 Holdings, LLC implicates the ISP ACCOUNT HOLDER as the defendant.

    Similarly, sometimes the John Doe placeholder defendant is simply called John Doe or Doe.  This is fine too.

    I couldn’t help but to laugh when I saw that various Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorneys started to sue defendants IN U.S. DISTRICT (FEDERAL) COURTS (which are significantly more strict than state courts) as “John Doe INFRINGER identified as using IP address [IP ADDRESS].”

    Who were those Strike 3 Holdings attorneys? Most innocuously, one is Joel Bernier, the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorney from the Eastern District of Michigan. Seeing him refer to the defendant as “John Doe Infringer” instead of the conventional “John Doe Subscriber” title initially made me think that he accidentally wrote down the wrong “John Doe Infringer” title in the docket as many plaintiff attorneys refer to defendants as “John Doe infringers” when they speak about them.

    Reviewing the list of recent cases, I thought “this MUST HAVE BEEN a Freudian slip, as calling a defendant an infringer in a copyright infringement lawsuit is conclusive.

    It is the purpose of the copyright infringement lawsuit to DETERMINE whether that accused defendant copied Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted titles or not. If he did, he’s an infringer. If he did not, he is not an infringer.

    The best analogy I can think of here to describe the humor in conclusively giving the title of “guilty defendant” to the defendant is in a murder trial where a defendant is sued as a John Doe placeholder but is not yet known (ok, these don’t exist, but run with this analogy), imagine if the criminal prosecutor charged the defendant by first calling the defendant “John Doe murderer” before the case begins.

    “A bit conclusive, don’t you think?”

    But, is calling the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright infringement defendant “John Doe Infringer” a Freudian slip? Or is it more malicious than a slip-up?

    We know that attorneys from each state are really “spokes on a wheel” for a larger client.

    Joel Bernier is a local attorney for his copyright holder clients (if I recall, he represents both Malibu Media, LLC and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases at the same time). I wrote about the “common troll” theory referencing the same attorneys representing all of the movie lawsuits in a particular lawsuit, and this phenomenon is certainly true here too with the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases.

    What got me concerned was that Joel Bernier from Michigan was not alone. The attorneys from New Jersey (John Atkin) and from the California Southern District Court (Lincoln Bandlow) also did the same thing.

    Now calling a defendant a “John Doe Infringer” is not a Freudian slip, but someone’s decision.

    Seeing both Lincoln Bandlow (the former “boss” [current “boss?”] of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits) and John Atkin (I don’t know how to refer to him — “rival boss?”) both start calling defendants “John Doe Infringers,” I now must come to the conclusion that given their history, it was the two of them together who decided on this new strategy.

    After all, it is both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin who have been the ones with [behind the scenes] authority to resolve the claims in the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits.

    So, is it possible that the decision by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC to start calling “John Doe Subscriber” defendants “John Doe Infringers” was a “top-down” decision from their lawyers? YES. But why, why, why?!?

    Then I started thinking further. Maybe it is worse. Is there some legal reason, implication, or effect I have not yet considered that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is now executing a strategy to allow them to get around certain states’ federal courts who have been denying them expedited discovery for their cases? How could referring to John Doe Defendants as John Doe Infringers solve this problem of theirs?

    Reviewing this article [as written], I thought back to the Miami-Dade Florida state based cases, where they also referred to the defendants as “John Doe Infringers.” [I noticed the change initially but the humor in the Miami-Dade defendants’ “new title” didn’t occur to me until just now. I remember simply thinking that the titles of the parties in the Miami-Dade lawsuits were poorly worded by the Florida attorneys (Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone) who filed them.]

    MIAMI DADE CASES: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

    But now seeing that it is both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin who appear to be the ones who are “top-down” making this change from “John Doe Subscriber” to “John Doe Infringer,” I have to sit up and take notice. Why? This is not yet clear to me.

    For the moment, let’s just stick to the funny new name for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants. John Doe Infringers.

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CALIFORNIA

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Central District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-02431)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.49.233.148 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10673)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.84.181.123 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10674)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10671)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10672)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10677)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.173.187.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01730)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.221.26 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01736)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-00042)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Northern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230 (Case No. 4:19-cv-08231)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 (Case No. 3:19-cv-08239)

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Southern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:19-cv-02452)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:19-cv-02488)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00068)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00067)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00209)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CONNECTICUT

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN FLORIDA*

    *Florida is where Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker (the plaintiff attorneys from the Miami-Dade County lawsuits) are licensed.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Middle District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 35.138.167.172 (Case No. 8:19-cv-03100)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-03143)

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Southern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20499)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20503)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20506)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20516)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20517)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20647)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN ILLINOIS

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-08148)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-08163)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-00773)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-01243)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-01301)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 108.225.112 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00482)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN MICHIGAN

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEVADA

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Nevada District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DOE IP Address 70.170.50.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00372)
    • Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DO IP Address 72.193.217.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00373)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW JERSEY

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court

    • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
    • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP address 69.112.9.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00778)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW YORK

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 67.245.246.132 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07256)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-11466)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-11464)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01435)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-01528)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01529)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01525)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00554)
    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00819)

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Western District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:20-cv-06113)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN PENNSYLVANIA

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

    Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 5:19-cv-06010)

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN VIRGINIA

    Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court

    • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

    Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

    Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

    Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.

    State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about being referred to as a “John Doe Infringer,” you can e-mail me at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

      NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

      Will Strike 3 Sue Miami-Dade Florida Defendants in Federal Court?

      strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been filing in the Miami-Dade court since September 3rd, 2019 (and continues to file even today [see below this article are the most recent set of cases]).

      To bring you up to speed:

      On 10/31/2019, I wrote an initial article explaining how Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is using the Florida Miami-Dade County Court to unmask defendants’ identities.

      On 1/20/2020, I wrote a follow-up article explaining how Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone might have other attorneys working their cases behind the scenes (interestingly enough, both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin). UPDATE (2/20/2020): Rachel Walker is now handling her own cases.

      On 2/10/2020, because of questions I was getting about confusion surrounding whether to file a motion to quash in the Florida Miami-Dade Court, I wrote an article explaining how defense attorneys are luring defendants in as clients with a “bait and switch” which ends up forcing them to settle or be sued in their home state’s federal court.

      *MOST RECENT UPDATE* On 8/18/2020, I wrote the Strike 3 Holdings – List of Cases by State (August, 2020) article. There, I wrote about a slew of recent federal court filings, and I believe that most [if not all] of the defendants accused in newly filed federal court cases were former Miami-Dade Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade cases have NO TEETH.

      To begin the topic of whether Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will file a lawsuit against former Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants [or to understand why we are discussing this topic in the first place], the first question to ask is “why wouldn’t Strike 3 Holdings, LLC just sue Miami-Dade defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami-Dade Florida court itself?”

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases assert a claim of copyright infringement (which carries statutory damages of $150,000 per instance of infringement). These cases assert that the accused subscriber downloaded their copyrighted adult films using BitTorrent.

      By definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit, it MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

      The Florida Miami-Dade based lawsuits literally have no “teeth.” These cases are NOT copyright infringement lawsuits. In these state-based cases, Strike 3 Holdings LLC merely uses the Florida Bill of Discovery laws to uncover the identities of the defendants, but the threat of “we will name and serve you if you do not settle” has NO EFFECT if that accused defendant does not live in Florida.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants must be sued in the federal court of the state in which they reside. *mic drop.*

      Florida Plaintiff Attorneys Rachel Walker & Tyler Mamone are LIMITED to filing lawsuits in Florida.

      Couple the “no teeth” comment (above) with the consideration that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone — the two attorneys who have been suing defendants under the Florida Pure Bill of Discovery — are merely licensed in Florida (NOTE: they could be licensed elsewhere, but keep reading for the point about STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY TERRITORIES).

      TO BE CLEAR: Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone CAN technically sue a defendant in any federal court across the US. However, their client – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC appears to be highly territorial, and other plaintiff attorneys from other states already “own” the territories where Strike 3 Holdings, LLC files their lawsuits.

      Thus, THEY will likely not financially benefit from a John Doe defendant of theirs being sued in a location where there is already ANOTHER Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorney filing lawsuits in that state.

      For example, they wouldn’t be able to sue in New York or in Connecticut where Jackie James is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in that territory… or John Atkin, who is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in New Jersey.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      So a better question is… if I do not settle the claims against me in the Miami-Dade Florida lawsuit, WILL *ANOTHER* STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY sue me in my home state?

      Unfortunately the answer could be a yes. We simply don’t know what Strike 3 Holdings LLC plans to do with all the names it is unmasking in the Miami-Dade lawsuits.

      Since Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone started suing defendants in the Miami-Dade Florida courts on September 3rd, 2019, Strike 3 Holdings LLC has sued 74 defendants in their home state’s federal courts.

      Most recently, since January 1, 2020, they have filed the following cases against defendants in the following states:

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CALIFORNIA

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Central District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-00042)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.144.176.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00921)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.55.138 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00945)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.112.16.67 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00946)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.7.250 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00948)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.154.71 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00191)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.91.3.98 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00944)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Southern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00067)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00068)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00209)

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CONNECTICUT

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN FLORIDA*

      *Florida is where Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker (the plaintiff attorneys from the Miami-Dade County lawsuits) are licensed.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Middle District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 47.196.216.110 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00101)

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Southern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20499)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20503)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20506)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20516)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20517)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20647)

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN ILLINOIS

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00773)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN MICHIGAN

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 4:20-cv-10143)

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW JERSEY

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court

      • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
      • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP address 69.112.9.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00778)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW YORK

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01435)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00554)
      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00819)

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN VIRGINIA

      Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court

      • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Which of the above copyright infringement lawsuits were filed as a result of non-settlement of the Miami-Dade lawsuit?

      I do not know whether all, some, or none of these cases were filed as a result of these defendants first being sued in the Florida Miami-Dade County Court.

      Is there a way to actually check if Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants?

      [*NOT USEFUL, BUT RELEVANT*: There is technically a way to track whether the IP addresses listed on the more recent federal court cases were once defendants in a Miami-Dade case, but it is a time consuming project.

      The Miami-Dade County Court cases are viewable page-by-page, and each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC complaints have potentially hundreds of pages of attachments containing one IP address per defendant.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, if someone has the time — they can do a manual search to see if AT LEAST ONE IP address of the more recent federal-court cases (above) can be found in a Miami-Dade case.  If there is at least one IP address match, then yes, they are re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants.]

      Focus on the bottom line: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC *is* actively suing, as you saw from the list of new cases.

      This is possibly the most important point (which I demonstrated by compiling the most recent list of cases):

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is actively suing defendants in the federal courts, and their decision to file in the Miami-Dade Florida County Court [again] is not a replacement for the conventional copyright infringement lawsuits for $150,000 per instance of infringement, which by definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      [SIDE NOTE:] CASE LAW UPDATE AND THOUGHTS ABOUT FUTURE FORM OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC LAWSUITS.

      To the reader from California that I spoke to in the past few days: I have learned of a recent case in the Southern District of California (3:19-cv-2452-JAH-LL; Doc. 4; “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 70.95.76.252”) where Judge Lopez granted expedited discovery to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (contrary to the way we thought case law was going in the Southern District of California).

      I obviously will need to look into this further, but this order happened just yesterday (2/19/2020). Thus, it appears that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC CAN AND WILL continue filing lawsuits in California. (NJ case law is still in transition).

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      [Sorry for the fragmented note. If I have time, this will be an article of its own in the coming days. I will also be writing an article noting the problem that for the states where the federal courts have DISALLOWED Strike 3 Holdings, LLC from filing their “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address” cases, I suspect Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will immediately start naming and serving defendants in these states rather than first suing them as John Does and asking the federal court for expedited discovery. This way, they will avoid the expedited discovery questions altogether and proceed straight to the 21-day answer period in which the defendant will need to either file and answer and prepare for litigation (or settle the claims against them in this shortened 21-day period) — both really unfortunate options to the defendant that was just hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.]

      In sum, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases… like a snake changes its skin… are changing their approach to their copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure we will be seeing the John Doe lawsuits in the same form as they have been suing in recent years, but for the moment, as you can clearly see, they are still being filed in the federal courts.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

      Here is the current (updated as of 8/18/2020) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      Local Case Numbers: 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

      State Case Numbers: 132019CC024647000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC003737000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC005388000005, 132020CC006500000005, 132020CC009493000005, 132020CC009491000005, 132020CC009492000005, 132020CC011499000005, 132020CC011744000005, 132020CC011743000005, 132020CC012478000005, 132020CC014481000005, 132020CC014520000005, 132020CC014518000005, 132020CC016577000005, 132020CC016669000005, 132020CC016660000005.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

      *8/18/2020 UPDATE: Still, no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. For continuity, I am pasting the older Miami-Dade cases which have recently been closed.

      CLOSED Local Case Numbers: 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

      CLOSED State Case Numbers: 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC003063000005, 132020CC003059000005, 132020CC005727000005, 132020CC006503000005, 132020CC006499000005.


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them when Malibu Media LLC used this same tactic, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

        NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

        The Truth about Kerry Culpepper IP movie lawsuits.

        hb-productions-fallen-productions-settlements Multiple Settlements from One Lawsuit

        Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii is a complicated attorney. I have demonstrated in previous articles that Kerry Culpepper thinks “at levels higher than the average person,” and that he can usually run circles around judges do not have the caffeine to oppose him. Here, Kerry Culpepper brazenly exposes what I call a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity by representing ALL of the movie copyright trolls together in one lawsuit. [Click to Tweet!]

        [SEPTEMBER 2020 UPDATE: SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAILS.]

        CULPEPPER IP has figured out a way to enforce his movie clients’ copyrights out-of-court. He has done this by sending settlement demand e-mails to internet users accused of VISITING, REGISTERING (with their real e-mail address), and DOWNLOADING copyrighted movies from the YTS website.

        These settlement demand letters have been sent *via e-mail* by Attorney Joshua Lee (who now appears to be working for Kerry Culpepper at Culpepper IP). Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters sent directly to internet users… without an ISP subpoena, without a Hawaii Rule 512(h) subpoena, without asking Cloudfront or Google Analytics to hand over the IP address information, and without a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Hawaii District Court.

        The reason I am mentioning the Culpepper IP settlement demand e-mails here [in this article] is because with Kerry Culpepper, YOU MUST BE PREPARED that there is SOMETHING ELSE going on behind the scenes.

        While in the settlement demand email” article I conclude that Culpepper’s end goal is to engage in “lawfare” against the piracy websites in order to protect his movie clients’ interests, you must be prepared that he is simply doing this for ONLY PROFIT, in which the topics I wrote about in this article REMAIN VERY RELEVANT TO YOUR SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAIL.

        Here is that article for your reference: The truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand letters VIA E-MAIL to YTS users.

        Now back to the movie lawsuits…

        Expect to be asked to pay multiple settlements for multiple movies downloaded.

        Be warned that settling the Fallen Productions Inc. (or HB Productions Inc.) ISP subpoena-based lawsuits might result in Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP asking you to pay for additional settlements for other movies your accused IP address downloaded on other dates using bittorrent.

        [Also be warned that if you hire a “settlement factory” defense attorney, chances are high that in their attempt to streamline the settlement process, you will not only pay a settlement for the “Angel Has Fallen” movie (or the “Hellboy” movie, or whatever movie is behind that particular copyright infringement lawsuit), but you may also end up having to pay for EACH AND EVERY OTHER MOVIE you may have downloaded over the past few years (assuming “tongue-in-cheek” for a moment that this same plaintiff attorney is representing the other movie companies as well).]

        How is it that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the same attorney representing ALL the movie lawsuits?

        Now obviously Kerry Culpepper is only one attorney in Hawaii. There have been *MANY* attorneys over the past ten years which I consider to be copyright troll attorneys who represent the same set of clients. However, in the past few days / weeks, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP started a storm of activity on the web by going after YTS / 1337x.to — the bittorrent trackers and the piracy websites themselves.

        Then, he followed this up be asking the court for a subpoena to disclose the identity of accused downloaders who used those website to download his client’s movies.

        …Then, Kerry Culpepper sent DMCA settlement demand letters to these accused downloaders asking them to settle the claims against them for $1,000 per movie download or face a copyright infringement lawsuit in the federal courts. Thus, I am using Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP as the example in this article about his client — a COMMON MOVIE TROLL entity.

        Have you heard? There is STILL a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity behind all of the movie lawsuits in the US.

        I am about to claim (again, 3 years later) that the same set of attorneys (here, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) are behind ALL of the movie lawsuits filed in the US (and that each of these attorneys are working for the same common copyright troll entity), and I have proof.

        [Click to Tweet!]

        In 2017, I spent a lot of time making known that the movie-based bittorrent cases were all being run by the same people behind the scenes. It was too coincidental that the same “copyright troll” attorneys were attracting every single movie company to be “their” client. 

        For years, I had only anecdotal evidence that the same attorneys were representing the same set of movie companies. It was only here in this lawsuit [All the movie companies together (represented by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) v. Harry Beasor and DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004) in the Hawaii District Court] that I had demonstrable proof that one attorney was representing EACH AND EVERY ONE of the movie copyright trolls.

        [Initially, I could explain this theory away by thinking that it is more plausible that there is a large entity who moves within the circles of the large movie producers and has the ear of the production companies.  Thus, when there is (yet) a(nother) movie that flops, they suggest that this movie production company use their services and sue downloaders of the film to re-coup losses from their failed movie.  At one point, I thought it was the MPAA itself which was the entity behind the scenes.  Within the context of this “bigger” entity, the plaintiff attorneys filing the lawsuits in each state are merely “cogs” in the wheel of this larger entity.]

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        One Explanation: ONE attorney in each state works for the same COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity.

        Let’s elaborate using logic.  If ONE plaintiff attorney in one particular state has become the ONLY ATTORNEY who files ALL of the movie lawsuits, then this plaintiff attorney must either be a MARKETING GENIUS by achieving this monopoly (meaning, the plaintiff attorney is 100% successful in attracting every one of the new movie lawsuits AND has been 100% successful in excluding EVERY OTHER ATTORNEY from filing movie lawsuits in that particular state)…

        …Or (more likely,) there are a group of insiders or [there is] a single entity behind the scenes [with a reputation among the movie production companies] which actively sells their services to each of the movie companies — [offering to sue every downloader for copyright infringement].

        Each attorney filing in each state’s federal court is working for this same “common copyright troll” entity which provides them with the instructions to sue defendants accused of downloading their client’s copyrighted movie titles. 

        My observation: The same movie companies are always represented by the SAME copyright troll attorneys in each state.

        Based on my observations over the years, the SAME plaintiff attorneys represent the SAME movie companies in EVERY STATE.

        With this case (pictured above), I can demonstrate that in the Hawaii District Court, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the attorney that is representing each and every one of the movie lawsuits.

        In other words, just as Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the “copyright troll movie attorney” in Hawaii, there are other plaintiff attorneys in other states who are working for a common copyright troll entity working behind the scenes. 

        Who is this COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity?

        But who is this common copyright troll entity?  Thinking logically that the MPAA is too-big-of-an-entity to cause such mischief, after some searching, in 2017, I found a company named “Rights Enforcement” (found at RightsEnforcement.com) being run by “Carl Crowell, a one-man police force for Hollywood studios.

        RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (Now Defunct)

        [As of writing this article, Rights Enforcement has since taken down their website and changed their name. I currently do not know under what name they are operating].

        An Example of Copyright Trolls Hiding Their Activities: Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com

        It was further proof at the time that there was a copyright troll [at the time, Carl Crowell, owner of RightsEnforcement.com (RightsEnforcement website *now taken down or changed to some other name I am not yet aware of*)] who was [at the time] posting each of the movies on their websites only to have those exact movies be the movies that were used to sue accused downloaders across the US.Below is an image taken from the now defunct RightsEnforcement.com website:

        kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-angel-productions-carl-crowell-guardaley-connection

        NOTE: It appears to me that Rights Enforcement (purposefully named to be an impossible name to find on a Google Search) was the website that was used to sell Carl Crowell’s “Hire us and we’ll sue [for you] internet users who have downloaded your copyrighted films.” The RightsEnforcement.com website’s last update was in July, 2017 when they updated the list of movies.

        RightsEnforcement.com has since been removed and their domain abandoned.

        You might think this means that they went out of business, but really, based on my own research, it appears as if they did not want people to be aware of their activities. In other words, the RightsEnforcement.com website was meant to be hidden from people like you and me, and our articles brought too much exposure to what they were doing.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        As you can see below, Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com even took steps to hide their footsteps by excluding their website history from archive.org’s “Way Back Machine.”

        settlements-hb-productions-fallen-productions Wayback Machine RightsEnforcement

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Why I think that HB Productions & Fallen Productions, Inc. are part of this “common copyright troll” conglomerate entity.

        Returning to the HB Productions, Inc. (“Hellboy”) and Fallen Productions, Inc. (“Angel Has Fallen”) lawsuits, I have reason to believe that these two “shell” production companies are yet TWO MORE companies affiliated with Carl Crowell, Rights Enforcement (whatever name they go by now), and Guardaley (the German entity probably behind even Carl Crowell).

        As you can see, these two copyright trolls are represented in this lawsuit image above by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP.

        When I first saw this, I was surprised to see that so many of the “common copyright troll” entity’s clients showed up as co-plaintiffs… suing TOGETHER in ONE copyright infringement lawsuit…

        But then when I immediately saw that this was filed in the US DISTRICT COURT… FOR THE DISTRICT OF *HAWAII*, my immediate thought was that “Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP must have been the one who filed this.” Only he would have the strategic calculations that would inspire him to bunch these lawsuits plaintiffs together.

        “Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP” in Hawaii must have been the one who sued these defendants for all of his client’s movies (including HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc.).

        In sum, call this all a conspiracy theory, but then notice which copyright holders have just sued defendants TOGETHER IN ONE LAWSUIT filed by Kerry Culpepper in the Hawaii District Court:

        kerry-culpepper-of-culpepper-ip-filed-fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen-hb-productions-hellboy-isp-subpoena-movie-lawsuit-common-troll

        So to date, which “copyright troll” movie companies are represented by this “COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL” MOVIE CONGLOMERATE”? Let’s look:

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Coincidence that kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is representing each of the movie companies together?

        Is it ANY COINCIDENCE that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP (the plaintiff attorney for the Fallen Productions Inc. and the HB Productions Inc. ISP subpoena based lawsuits) is also suing defendants for the bittorrent download of these other movies as well? …in the SAME LAWSUIT?

        kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Do you think if you were sued for just one title… and Kerry Culpepper has reason to know that the IP address [that you were assigned from your ISP] was also seen downloading these other movies, do you think that you will also be asked to settle the claims against you for these other movies too?

        kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Have Movie Companies Taken a Lesson [to ask for multiple settlements] from the Porn Industry Strike 3 Holdings LLC & Malibu Media LLC Lawsuits?

        Strike 3 Holdings LLC and Malibu Media LLC (both pornography-based lawsuits) found a way to force accused adult film downloaders to not only settle the claims against them for one copyrighted movie downloaded, but in every lawsuit, they now ask for settlements for each and every copyrighted title ever downloaded by that internet user.

        Do you think that the plaintiff attorneys behind the Fallen Productions Inc. “Angel Has Fallen” movie John Doe lawsuits (or the HB Productions inc. “Hellboy” movie John Doe lawsuits) won’t also ask for settlements from other movies they also believe that you downloaded in the past?

        kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        [Remember, copyright infringement gives the copyright holder *THREE YEARS* from the alleged date of infringement to file a copyright infringement John Doe lawsuit against you for the bittorrent-based download of that copyrighted movie.]

        How many times are YOU willing to settle the claims against you?

        In sum, unlike Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP, most plaintiff attorneys have been trying to hide on the court’s dockets that they are suing for one video, but asking for settlements for other titles allegedly downloaded by that same downloader. Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii has demonstrated that there is an explicit link between these copyright holders by suing defendants for the download of each of these copyright holders’ copyrighted movie titles. [Click to Tweet!]

        Why using a settlement factory attorney to settle claims in lawsuits like these could be problematic.

        I don’t even need to breach this topic, but settlement factory attorneys will try to settle the claims made against their client in the most “economical” method possible.

        DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT HIRING A SETTLEMENT FACTORY ATTORNEY TO SETTLE ONE TITLE CLAIMED AGAINST YOU WILL KEEP YOU OUT OF TROUBLE WHEN THAT SAME COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY TAKES YOUR SETTLEMENT MONEY AND LATER ASKS FOR MORE SETTLEMENTS FOR “OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED?”

        …How many times can you afford to settle a copyright claim against you? How many titles can you afford to pay to settle?

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Misleading HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc. Filings?

        Thus far, these are the HB Productions Inc. and Fallen Productions Inc. that have been filed… each alleging ONLY the download of ONE title. Deceptive? Have the plaintiff attorneys in these cases disclosed the REAL INTERESTED PARTY or is the common-troll hoax still trying to be hidden?

        HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07511)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07159)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07512)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07161)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07508)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07002)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07005)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07513)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07157)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07163)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07003)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07514)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07160)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07004)
        HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07006)

        HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Nevada District Court:

        HB Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-5 (Case No. 2:19-cv-01849)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08339)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08343)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08340)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08341)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-31 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08342)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00367)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00369)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00374)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00371)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00368)

        Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court:

        Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. Beasor et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
        Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00033)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

        In sum, understand from this article the dynamics of who is really suing you.

        In sum, just be careful when dealing with any of these movie company lawsuits.  I have written about Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP many times, and I have even called him an “evil genius” at times because he thinks out of the box.

        Chances are that each movie lawsuit is filed by the same attorney who is filing other movie lawsuits, and because there is a “common copyright troll” between the various lawsuits, there is a mechanism for them to look up your accused IP address and check to see whether you have downloaded any of their “other clients’ copyrighted titles.”

        If you as a defendant are unaware of this fact, or if you are an attorney who is purposefully blind to this fact (this is one of my big problems with “settlement factory” defense attorneys), then you expose yourself (or you expose your client) to additional claims of copyright infringement while that plaintiff attorney seeks to solicit additional money for additional titles allegedly downloaded… just after you (or your client) paid them thousands of dollars to settle the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

        Obviously I am simplifying here greatly (and not all attorneys ask for additional settlements), but for what it is worth, understanding the dynamics of who is suing you and where they received your information is very important when deciding how to approach the defense of your case… especially when you seek to settle one claim of copyright infringement and that plaintiff attorney claims that you downloaded four other titles belonging to “his” clients.

        [Please Click to Tweet!]


        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

        CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it for my eyes only, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

          NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

          Why a motion to quash might NOT be the correct approach in a Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Florida Case.

          strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

          Out-of-state defendants have received subpoena letters from their ISPs informing them that they have been sued by Strike 3 Holdings LLC in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is my observation that these defendants are being misinformed by certain defense attorneys as to whether they should file a motion to quash to try to stop the ISP from sharing their information or they should immediately pay Strike 3 Holdings a settlement to prevent them from being sued for copyright infringement.

          Settlement Factory Attorneys are not Disclosing their Past Outcomes.

          The problem is that these defense attorneys are recommending that out-of-state defendants file a motion to quash. However, they ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME that once a motion to quash is filed, the Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorney will send that defense attorney a letter threatening a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit in a FEDERAL COURT unless that accused defendant settles the claims against them for thousands of dollars.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          This would not be a problem if the accused defendant WAS INFORMED UP FRONT that a settlement would be solicited (threatened) if the defense attorney filed the motion to quash in the Miami-Dade Florida County court.

          What is actually happening, however, is that defendants are not being informed of the letters being sent by Strike 3 Holdings, and the defense attorneys are FEIGNING IGNORANCE and PRETENDING NOT TO KNOW that this (a settlement and a threat to sue in the defendant’s home state) has been the result that has come from filing a motion to quash.

          In other words, someone is lying to someone, and I suspect it is [again, the settlement factory] defense attorney who is lying to their potential clients to lure them into settling the claims against them by first “selling” them on the idea of filing a motion to quash with the Florida court.

          [I could stop the article here, but let’s delve a bit deeper into this topic.]

          Why Would a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC Defendant Settle Now?

          WHY would someone accused as a potential defendant in [what is really a state-based Miami-Dade Florida court] Bill of Discovery case (again, NOT a copyright infringement case filed in a federal court) file a motion to quash as their [settlement factory] attorneys are luring them to do?

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          If they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (and this is obviously not legal advice), the likelihood of them being named and served as a defendant in the Florida court would be logically ZERO.

          WHY: The Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade cases are *NOT* copyright infringement cases for $150,000, but rather, they are merely requests to disclose the identities of the accused infringers. If defendants did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in this Florida court they would not be facing a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit because copyright infringement lawsuits MUST be filed in a federal court, NOT a state court.

          Two reasons why Miami-Dade Strike 3 defendants are settling now (before a lawsuit against them is filed).

          So why would an accused Miami-Dade Strike 3 defendant settle? I’ll give this TWO answers:

          #1: Defense attorneys are luring defendants in with false promises from a “motion to quash” defense.

          ANSWER #1: The motion to quash vehicle is not providing defendants the outcome they are looking for (filing a motion to quash lures the defendant into communication with the plaintiff attorney and forces him/her to decide whether to settle the claims against him or defend against a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court).

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          I have written extensively about motions to quash (a motion telling the court that they do not have personal jurisdiction over an accused defendant [and thus the court cannot proceed against that particular defendant] because that defendant does not live in the state in which he/she is sued).

          A motion to quash is “technically” the correct motion to file when the defendant is outside of Florida.

          In the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases, 99% of the defendants DO NOT LIVE IN FLORIDA (I actually do not know the actual percentage, but pretty much every defendant that has called me lives outside of Florida). Thus, the Miami-Dade Florida court has NO JURISDICTION over most of these accused defendants, and thus a motion to quash would “technically” be the proper vehicle to hide the defendant’s identity from Strike 3 Holdings LLC.

          But JUST BECAUSE something (here, a “motion to quash” a subpoena) is the “right vehicle” to achieve a particular outcome (here, preventing the ISP from handing over the identity of the accused downloader) DOES NOT MEAN that by using that vehicle you will get the outcome you desire.

          Strike 3 Holdings knows the ACTUAL STATE where the defendant LIVES (and threatens to sue them there, even with a motion to quash).

          The problem is that in the process of filing the motion to quash, Strike 3 Holdings LLC “learns” the location of that defendant (they actually already know the location of the defendant through the geolocation of his/her IP address anyway), and the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney threatens the Florida attorney to either settle or withdraw the motion to quash OR ELSE they will file a copyright infringement lawsuit against their defendant in the US District Court (the federal court) in the state in which their client lives.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          Strike 3 Holdings LLC threatens the defense attorneys to withdraw their motions to quash or face a lawsuit against their clients in their home state.

          Thus, the outcome of filing a motion to quash is that the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney threatens the defense attorney to settle now or else their defendant client will be sued in their home state’s federal court. *I have seen these letters* so I know first hand that this is happening.

          The Miami-Dade Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” cases are not copyright infringement lawsuits.

          So if the end result of filing a motion to quash is that you will receive a threat from the opposing counsel, why file a motion to quash in the first place? [Again, it is not as if the plaintiff attorney will name and serve that defendant in their “Florida Bill of Discovery” case. There are practically no damages there and the Miami-Dade Florida court has no jurisdiction over most of the defendants. So what is accomplished by filing a motion to quash? In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.]

          Settlement Factory Attorneys are marketing their settlement outcomes by feigning that a motion to quash should be their strategy instead of the settlement they know will result by filing the motion to quash.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          Unfortunately, there are Florida attorneys who have actively marketed motions to quash as the “silver-bullet” solution to these Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases. However, I do not think that this kind of marketing was the honest approach which is “in the best interest of the client,” a legal ethical attorneys need to hold by in every state… maybe not in Florida.

          Eventually a defendant who files a motion to quash at the advice of their attorney will also pay that same attorney a second fee to negotiate a settlement to settle the claims against them.

          What the defense attorneys neglect to tell their clients is that eventually the client will be forced to settle the claims against them and thus the client not only paid the Florida attorney hundreds or thousands for the motion to quash and the procedural hurdles involved in achieving the motion to quash, but they would also have to pay the attorney again to negotiate a settlement of the claims against their client to the tune of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.

          “Playing stupid” is not an honest approach when representing a Strike 3 Holdings LLC defendant.

          Thus, I am kind of annoyed when I hear stories about the misinformation I have been hearing from Florida defense attorneys who have been deceiving their clients and then “playing stupid” when a settlement is eventually suggested [and it will be suggested].

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          In sum, a Strike 3 Defendant who filed a motion to quash has probably been tricked into settling the claims against them.

          So in sum, to answer the question “why would someone accused in a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC case settle?”

          My first answer is that they were deceived by an attorney to file a motion to quash and now they are being forced to settle the claims against them… or risk a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit filed against them* in a federal court in their home state. Thus, to avoid being sued, they settle.

          Why else would an accused defendant in a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC case settle?

          #2: Unfortunately, Strike 3 often [but not always] accurately accuses the correct internet user who downloaded their copyrighted videos.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          ANSWER #2: Strike 3 Holdings LLC accurately identified the accused defendant as the one who downloaded their copyrighted titles, and to avoid a lawsuit filed in a federal court in their state, the defendant settles the claims against him out of court.

          One of the unfortunate things in the Strike 3 Holdings LLC copyright infringement cases is that Strike 3 Holdings has gotten quite good at identifying the correct defendant.

          Further, they are targeting defendants based on their demographic information where before the defendant is even targeted, they are identified [sometimes mistakenly] as someone who has deep pockets. Add together the “we got the right guy” and “he can pay us a lot of money,” they have the perfect defendant who will settle the claims against him.

          Strike 3 Holdings LLC copyright infringement lawsuits generally require the plaintiff to obtain testimony “under oath” from the defendant whether he downloaded the videos or not.

          I wish I had more to say here. There are a thousand ways to handle a copyright infringement lawsuit from the defense side of things, however, in pretty much most cases, the defendant must assume that the plaintiff attorney will put the him or her under oath (meaning, they will take his testimony) and ask whether he has downloaded, streamed, or viewed adult films using bittorrent.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          As soon as the defendant answers “yes,” they have just compromised their chances of winning the copyright infringement lawsuit.

          Remember: The burden of proof in a civil copyright infringement lawsuit is “PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,” meaning “more likely than not,” or “51%.”

          This is a much lower burden of proof than “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” or “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” as you would see in criminal cases.

          Thus, knowing that the plaintiff attorney will take the testimony from the defendant if he fights back, most defendants would rather opt to settle the claims against them than expose themselves to a deposition where they might end up giving testimony which kills their defense.

          So, because of these uncomfortable truths, the Miami-Dade Florida based Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits continue in full force.

          OBSERVATION: Strike 3 Holdings LLC is still filing more Miami-Dade Florida based “Pure Bill of Discovery” Lawsuits.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          Since I wrote the last article three weeks ago (and the one before than in October, 2019), I have observed that there were four more cases filed in the Miami-Dade Florida court (and within each of the four lawsuits is potentially a hundred or more defendants — I know this because the complaints implicate hundreds of defendants, each one accused of being “ONE UNKNOWN INFRINGER” having ONE IP ADDRESS).

          Thus, for the cost of filing ONE federal court lawsuit, they are exposing the names of potentially a hundred or more defendants who will pay to settle the claims against them.

          Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

          Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

          STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, and 2019-028410-CC-05.

          State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, and 132019CC028410000005.

          *2/10/2020 UPDATE: Still, no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed in the last three weeks:

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

          NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05.

          NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005.


          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them or what the defense attorneys are doing, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

          CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

            NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

            Skip to content