Category Archives: Copyright Troll Attorneys

MG Premium Ltd. is about to sue internet users for streaming adult videos. My suspicion. Watch.

MG Premium Ltd. is the owner of the websites containing adult content, [specifically, “Reality Kings,” “Brazzers,” “MOFOS,” “Babes.com,” “Twistys,” and others]. While at the moment they appear to be merely “shaking down” adult film websites [e.g., last year, WAXTUBE.COM; this year, YESPORNPLEASE.COM and/or VSHARE.IO], I cannot help but to think that MG Premium Ltd. will soon be suing downloaders accused of streaming their copyrighted adult films on Tube-like websites. 

[Less likely (because they have already tried this in the US with CEG-TEK), I suspect that MG Premium might again begin sending DMCA settlement demand letters to US-based accused internet users just as they are currently doing in Sweden as I write this article (currently, they are trying to shake down 16,594 accused internet users in Sweden who have been observed downloading their adult film titles).]

Why I think MG Premium’s lawsuits will catch internet users who are STREAMING CONTENT rather than downloading videos on BITTORRENT SWARMS:

In April of 2017, I suggested that in the future, internet users will be caught viewing streamed Tube-like videos.  I suggested that based on the Pornhub lawsuit (MG Premium Ltd. owns Pornhub.com), viewers of adult content would get caught by the Google Analytics tracker which is installed on many websites using Google Analytics to track their users.  This would be a “next-gen” kind of lawsuit where the copyright holders move past tracking bittorrent use (an outdated method of tracking downloaders), and they would start using the pirated porn websites themselves to track the users by their IP address.

Unfortunately, I was wrong about the tracker, but I was right about the concept.  Instead of Google Analytics, I should have been looking at Cloudflare, the content delivery network (“CDN”) provider which hosts a majority of the content online.  And in the near future, I expect [from mere 1+1 observation] that MG Premium Ltd. will soon launch lawsuits against John Doe defendants… but not based on bittorrent use.  Rather, they will have companies such as Cloudflare turn over the IP address logs of which IP addresses accessed the pirated adult films on which dates and times.

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

WHO IS MG PREMIUM LTD.?

MG Premium Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mindgeek. According to Ernesto from Torrentfreak, “[MG Premium Ltd.] the company, formerly known as Manwin, owns one of the most visited adult websites, Pornhub, and is also the driving force behind YouPorn, Redtube, Tube8, Xtube, and dozens of other sites.”

TechNadu, “MindGeek is the owner of Pornhub, one of the most visited porn websites in the world, as well as the owner of well-known adult production companies.”

NOTE: MG PREMIUM LTD. ALSO USED TO ACT UNDER THE NAME FROYTAL SERVICES LTD., THEN THEY ACTED UNDER THE NAME “MANWIN CONTENT.”

HISTORY: MG PREMIUM LTD USED A COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY TO SEND DMCA SETTLEMENT DEMAND LETTERS.

The last time I saw MG Premium Ltd. acting in the “copyright trolling” space was in 2014-2016 when they hired Copyright Enforcement Group (“CEG-TEK”) to send settlement demand letters asking for money every time an accused downloader downloaded one of their thousands of copyrighted titles.

At the time, MG Premium Ltd. was using the business entity name “Froytal Services Limited”. I was tracking them for some time trying to warn those downloading their titles that they will receive a settlement demand letter from MG Premium Ltd. and others using CEG-TEK’s services. At the time, they were asking for $300/title allegedly downloaded, but back then, the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC “Tushy, Vixen, and Blacked” lawsuits did not yet get started.

In 2015, the average settlement for an MG Premium Ltd. case was something like $900 (~3 titles displayed on CEG-TEK’s page). Now we are seeing Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits ask for settlements closer to $30,000 or $40,000 and I have no doubt that MG Premium Ltd. has noticed.

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

MG PREMIUM LTD. IN 2015:

In 2014-2015, most internet users at that time were fearful about $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuits filed in federal courts, as we see today with the Strike 3 Holdings LLC and (and in past years with the Malibu Media LLC lawsuits).

In 2015, MG Premium Ltd. (via CEG-TEK) went around the US federal courts and used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to “politely ask” the ISPs to forward their settlement demand letter to ISP subscriber’s e-mail address on file.

Using DMCA settlement demand notices [which went into the e-mail inbox of ISP account holders], MG Premium Ltd. accused the ISP account holders of copyright infringement.

They threatened that they could file a copyright infringement lawsuit against them in federal court. However, “to avoid litigation,” they were willing to have the accused downloaders pay CEG-TEK (their agent) a modest settlement anonymously and conveniently using a credit card.

CEG-TEK was the company they hired to set up the settlement payment website and to handle the settlement negotiations should an accused downloader have multiple titles claimed against him (and most did).

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

I knew that tracking the piracy of every one of their adult films was prohibitively expensive because the huge amount of computer resources it would take to track every single bittorrent swarm containing the various versions leaking on the internet of each of their movie titles (1080p, 720, high definiton (HD), low definition, clips, siterips, mistitled swarms, etc.). Thus, I realized that MG Premium Ltd. merely resorted to selecting adult film videos (their most “popular” titles) which they believed would yield the largest number of settlements. For this reason, I posted an list of titles that MG Premium Ltd. was tracking.

The fall of CEG-TEK and the end of MG Premium Ltd.’s copyright trolling DMCA settlement campaign:

There is a lot of history in what ended up killing CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement business, but to keep things simple, many ISPs got together and created the Six Strikes Anti-Piracy System where the ISPs stopped forwarding CEG-TEK’s settlement demand letters (cutting off MG Premium Ltd.’s ability to collect settlement payments).

Instead of forwarding the DMCA settlement demand letter, under the Six Strikes System, ISPs simply notified their customer that copyright infringement had occurred on their internet connection, and if it did not stop, they would share their identity with the copyright holder (exposing that internet user to a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court for $150,000 per instance of infringement).

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

The immediate result was that big ISPs were no longer forwarding CEG-TEK’s settlement demand letters. CEG-TEK then expanded the list of ISPs that agreed to forward its DMCA settlement demand letters, but in the end, to no avail.

While the Six Strikes System was meant to support the copyright holders’ interests by sharing user information with them, instead it killed the business of the copyright enforcement companies. It also caused other non-member ISPs to also start refusing to comply with the DMCA rules [as companies such as CEG-TEK and MG Premium Ltd. were exploiting them] by refusing to forward settlement demand letters in their entirety.

Most notable of these ISPs was COX Communications, which was eventually sued by BMG for refusing to send over DMCA notices to its subscribers. There is no doubt a lot to write about the BMG v. Cox lawsuit, but the focus in this article is on MG Premium Ltd., CEG-TEK’s old client.

The Six Strikes System eventually ended (as far as I know), but before this occurred, the idea of sending DMCA letters to internet account users became a useless endeavor. The last time I spoke to CEG-TEK, they were waiting for the outcome of the BMG v. Cox lawsuit to determine whether they could continue their proprietary DMCA settlement demand letter “adult film copyright enforcement” business, or whether they would sell it to the highest bidder.

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

I suspected at one point that Malibu Media LLC or other prolific copyright trolls would buy CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement website and proprietary technology, but due to circumstances of Malibu Media LLC filing lawsuits against its own attorney Keith Lipscomb (the attorney running all of the Malibu Media LLC adult film lawsuits across the US), the sale to Malibu Media LLC never happened. (In full disclosure and in hindsight, CEG-TEK would never have sold their business model to Malibu Media LLC based solely on the fact that CEG-TEK tried its best to keep its operations legitimate and Malibu Media LLC had a bad reputation).

Instead, the CEG-TEK company is gathering dust and happily, no MG Premium Ltd. settlement demand letters have been sent out [to US internet] users since 2016.

WHAT NOW?

So where do we go from here? Honestly, at this moment, nowhere. The BMG lawsuit ended with COX settling the claims against it (giving DMCA settlement demand letters from companies such as CEG-TEK and Rightscorp (music) some “teeth” — because now copyright owners could force ISPs to shut down the internet accounts of those accused of copyright infringement — but those who were running CEG-TEK already moved on to other business ventures.

CEG-TEK is in the dustbin, for the moment, adult film company Malibu Media LLC lawsuits have stopped because Malibu Media LLC again is in litigation with their new attorneys, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases are floundering like a fish-out-of-water with some federal court rulings killing their business method of suing accused downloaders for copyright infringement in federal court.

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

The new tactic of “shaking down” large websites hosting pirated content.

No doubt the new tactic of going after the large websites hosting copyrighted content is a very profitable idea for the adult film copyright holders. Instead of shaking down end-users (downloaders) for a few hundred dollars per video, they can shake down significantly deeper pockets — the adult film websites hosting “free” adult film content [and, consequently making millions of dollars in advertising revenue]… and the adult film movie copyright holders want every penny of that revenue.

I am seeing the same trend on the movie front. I understand that movie companies have been going after the websites that are hosting copyrighted movie content… first The Pirate Bay… and most recently, IceFilms.info (currently down, and possibly down forever).

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

My Thoughts: Staying Away From Downloaders is a Good Thing for Downloaders.

If the movie companies and the adult film companies can succeed in shutting down the website owners who host the unlicensed copyrighted movies AND they stop trying to sue and extort thousands of dollars from each accused internet user who was observed downloading the copyrighted movies, this would be a good outcome.

Of course, millions of users who rely on pirated movies and TV shows would be temporarily unable to access their movies without paying some cable company provider or subscription-based providers such as Hulu, Disney+, Netflix, etc., but at least the focus of the copyright holders will be in the right place — trying to stop the AVAILABILITY of pirated content.

…but “a scorpion cannot act in any way other than a scorpion.”

And yet, out comes the jaded part of me which laughs when I consider that “a scorpion cannot act in any way other than a scorpion.” MG Premium Ltd., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and other movie copyright trolls are not going to change who they are. They may shed their skin and change their tactics momentarily (perhaps now moving from tracking accused downloaders on Bittorrent to tracking them using Cloudflare or Google Analytics), but they will not stop going after the most profitable source of revenue… the collective deep pockets of those accused of downloading their copyrighted films.

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

If you are old enough to get the “Little Shop of Horrors” reference, maybe giving the venus fly trap “a drop of blood” at a time to keep it momentarily satiated will stay the coming copyright infringement lawsuits (the “drop of blood” = each movie website who pays the copyright holders a multi-million dollar settlement). But eventually, I have NO DOUBT that the words “FEED ME SEYMOUR!” will once again begin to ring in the halls of the federal courts across the US as new lawsuits are filed against accused downloaders yet again.

This time, however, I suspect that the copyright trolls will have changed their skin. They will no longer sue accused internet users who used BITTTORENT to download their copyrighted videos, but rather, they will use big-tech companies such as Cloudflare and Google as partners in their “Anti-Piracy” campaign to sue each IP address who visited a particular website and who streamed a particular video on a particular date.

Comparing the Little Shop of Horrors' Venus Fly Trap (Audrey II) to MG Premium Ltd. and their desire for a "drop of blood."
Comparing the Little Shop of Horrors’ Venus Fly Trap (Audrey II) to MG Premium Ltd. and their desire for a “drop of blood.”

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


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about MG Premium Ltd. or anything else I have written here, you can e-mail me at [email protected], you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your circumstances, 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 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.

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) 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, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, and 2020-002019-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.

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

*2/12/2020 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:

NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.

NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.


[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.