MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (“X-ART”) LAWSUITS, STRATEGIES, SETTLEMENTS.

malibu-media-case-consolidations

I have added this page for internet users who have been entangled in the Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) cases.  Malibu Media, LLC is an adult film / pornographic film producer, and they sue individual John Doe Defendants for the bittorrent download of “siterips” based on their demographics in federal courts across the US.

The goal of this page is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber having IP address 182.765.456.844 (Case No. 7:12-cv-03812) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Malibu Media, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS (FAQ):

Below is a good starting point to understand who Malibu Media, LLC is, and why you are being sued.  For a more in-depth article on the Malibu Media, LLC copyright trolling scheme, visit the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (‘X-ART’ SITERIP) MOVIE LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA” article on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC site.

WHAT IS MALIBU MEDIA, LLC?

Malibu Media, LLC is the company filing the copyright infringement lawsuits for the “x-art.com” adult film website.  Since 2012, Malibu Media, LLC has flooded the federal courts over 6000+ copyright infringement lawsuits based on bittorrent downloads of their adult film movies.  Each lawsuit sues for the illegal download of one film, but alleges that the defendant downloaded 20-80 additional titles.  They seek $150,000 in statutory damages for the download of that one film.

Malibu Media, LLC is notorious for accusing downloaders of downloading “siterips,” where an internet user clicks on one (1) bittorrent file, but within that bittorrent file are 20-80 additional videos.  People claim that Malibu Media, LLC is ‘leaking’ and uploading these siterips themselves, and then tracking the bittorrent swarms to see who downloads them.

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

What is Malibu Media’s affiliation with Guardaley?

Malibu Media, LLC has been intimately associated with a German company called Guardaley to track their bittorrent swarms and provide so-called forensic “evidence” in the many lawsuits.  Guardaley is a questionable company and their tracking methods have been discredited by the German courts.  Guardaley is known to claim that an accused defendant downloaded an entire file (or a set of videos) as soon as he or she clicks on the bittorrent file and loads up the bittorrent software (before even a byte of data is even downloaded).  Many accused defendants that I have spoken to claim that they never finished any of Malibu Media, LLC’s downloads (yet they were sued anyway).

How does Malibu Media, LLC choose which downloader to sue?

Once a Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader, they continue to track that downloader over the course of months.  Lawsuits are filed against downloaders based on the geolocation of where the accused downloader apparently lives.

MALIBU MEDIA USES INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS BASED ON ZIP CODE TO DETERMINE WHO TO SUE.

Malibu Media has been known to check the location of the IP address against a list of zip codes, and compare those zip codes to demographic income information and home property values within those zip codes.  Poorer communities generally are discarded, and wealthier communities end up prioritised and sued.  The reason for this is that wealthier professionals have larger bank accounts, more assets, larger families, and are likely professionals and specialists within their trade, meaning that they are more apt to settle a lawsuit filed against them for the download and viewing of pornographic materials.

How much does Malibu Media, LLC ask for in a settlement?

In a settlement negotiation, Malibu Media, LLC knows that copyright holders traditionally ask for $3,500 for the download of one title.  They also know that settlements can be anywhere between $1,500-$1,800 once negotiated by an attorney.  For this reason, they start their negotiations at $1,500 PER TITLE when they are called by an accused defendant.

Thus, an accused downloader who was claimed to download 20 titles should expect an initial settlement offer of $30,000 ($1,500 x 20 = $30K; an obscene number).

As soon as an attorney opens up settlement negotiations, Malibu Media, LLC is known to immediately drop the settlement asking price to $750 PER TITLE (they refer to this as ‘minimum statutory damages,’ which multiplied by the number of titles they ask for in a settlement results in an obscene settlement asking price).  From there, we would normally determine 1) whether to settle or fight the case based on the merits of the lawsuit (many of my clients simply do not do the download), or 2) whether to negotiate down from there.

What about Malibu Media anonymous settlements?”

Malibu Media, LLC settlements, with some tweaking of the settlement agreement during the settlement negotiations can be an anonymous settlement.  There are a small number of settlement factory attorneys who are advertising and advocating “anonymous settlements.”  Buyer beware, as settling anonymously in the way they suggest can expose you to additional lawsuits, AFTER you have just paid Malibu a settlement.

Click here to read about “Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer,” written on 7/23/2017.

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

How our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC uses LEVERAGE to minimize the settlement amount.

Because we are willing to fight each case on the merits (remember, Malibu Media lawsuits are based on Guardaley tracking methods, which are faulty), we do have leverage to negotiate the settlements down to something significantly more reasonable.  Up front, I do not encourage settlements nor do I push them on clients (especially if they did not do the download), but settlement negotiations are a good tool to consider when deciding whether to proceed with defending the case in court, or whether offering a settlement can minimize the costs to accused defendants.

(If we are fighting, here is a settlement tactic:  Remember, if a settlement is offered and we end up fighting the case, and the ultimate judgement amount ends up being LESS than the settlement amount we offered, Malibu Media, LLC’s attorneys will likely be liable to the accused defendant for ALL THE ATTORNEY FEES SPENT AFTER THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS MADE.)

HOW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC OPERATES THEIR LAWSUITS ACROSS THE U.S.

Malibu Media, LLC (and correspondingly, Guardaley) operates their lawsuits from one central location.  They usually choose a figurehead, or a law firm to manage and coordinate all of the attorneys filing lawsuits on their behalf across the US.

Until 2016, Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were run by Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb & Eisenberg (now defunct, I believe).  After Lipscomb, they were temporarily run locally from a law firm called Pillar Law Firm, and now I have reason to believe they are apparently being run by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity.

WHY DID LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA, LLC PART WAYS?

The reason Keith Lipscomb and Malibu Media, LLC parted ways was because Lipscomb apparently did not pay Malibu Media, LLC the millions of dollars they made in settlements.  

I have analyzed the numbers and it is unclear whether the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were profitable for Lipscomb, or whether he is yet one more copyright troll attorney who has cheated his copyright troll client.

WHERE IS MALIBU MEDIA SUING DEFENDANTS?  WHAT ATTORNEYS ARE THEY USING?

Malibu Media appears to be focusing their lawsuits in Texas, and the New York / New Jersey / Connecticut tri-state area.

Malibu’s attorney for the Texas cases is Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm.

Malibu’s attorney for the NY & CT cases is Jacqueline James.

Malibu’s attorney for the NJ cases is Patrick Cerillo.

You can read the details about these three Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, here.

There are other attorneys filing Malibu Media cases across the US, and I have listed the main attorneys below.  Those that file sporadically have been dropped from the list.

List of Malibu Media, LLC single-defendant cases filed as of 3/17/2017:

Jacqueline James (28% of all Malibu Cases)
Connecticut (38 Cases)
New York (40 Cases)

Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (16% of all Malibu Cases)
Texas (42 Cases)

Patrick Cerillo (14% of all Malibu Cases)
New Jersey (38 Cases)

Joel Bernier (6% of all Malibu Cases)
Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

Mary Schulz (4% of all Malibu Cases)
Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

Jon Hoppe (3% of all Malibu Cases)
Maryland (7 Cases)

Jordan Rushie (3% of all Malibu Cases)
Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

John Decker (1% of all Malibu Cases)
Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

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

TorrentLawyer Malibu Media, LLC Articles:

Below are recent articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Malibu Media, LLC plaintiff:

Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer.,” written on 7/23/2017

Judge forces Malibu Media to reveal the accuracy of their geolocation technology,” on 5/10/2017

Malibu Media movies, and why it is important to know this list,” written on 5/5/2017.

Malibu Media Cases and Why To Track Their Monthly Filings,” written on 5/4/2017.

Turnkey ‘Settlement Factory’ Defense Attorneys and Malibu Media LLC,” written on 3/29/2017.

Malibu Media, LLC appears to be adhering to an ‘Old Guard, New Guard’ distinction between their older and newer attorneys,” written on 3/13/2017.

Confirmed: Malibu Media invests in $400 filing fees at $20,000/month,” written on  3/13/2017.

2017 Malibu Media – Where Cases Are Filed and Who are the Attorneys?” written on 3/13/2017.

Malibu Media, LLC cases facing hard scrutiny in California,” written on 12/23/2016.

Malibu Media, LLC appears to be on a $20,000/month filing budget,” written on 12/23/2016.

Was Lipscomb’s Malibu Media v. Doe campaign profitable?” written on 12/22/2016.

What happened to Malibu Media, LLC in April 2016?” written on 12/21/2016.

Is Malibu Media “faking” the publication requirement in their lawsuits?” written on 2/9/2016.

Judge rules that (Guardaley) German investigator’s evidence is insufficient to prove direct infringement” written on 7/28/2015.

My Response to the yet-to-be-written guilty verdict in the Malibu Media, LLC Bellwether Trial (PAED)” written on 6/12/2013.

Malibu Media targets rich neighborhoods, and introduces prejudicial character evidence into each case” written on 6/4/2013.

UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC ‘SINGLE-DOE’ CASES FILED,” written on 3/7/2013.

California Judge Consolidates ALL Malibu Media, LLC Cases, and WHY THIS IS BAD,” written on 7/12/2012.

(UPDATED) Forum Shopping by Malibu Media, LLC Copyright Trolls” written on 5/7/2012.

Malibu Media, LLC cases go down in FLAMES in Virginia,” written on 4/3/2012.

Malibu Media, LLC – Friend or Foe?  Foe!” written on 3/23/2012

Malibu Media, LLC — New “Copyright Troll” on the Block,” written on 3/6/2012.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.  

To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  

Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  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.

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

    LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY, AS OF 3/12/2017)

    Cases in the Connecticut District Court (38)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00187, 3:17-cv-00188, 3:17-cv-00189, 3:17-cv-00190, 3:17-cv-00195, 3:17-cv-00203, 3:17-cv-00213, 3:17-cv-00219, 3:17-cv-00220, 3:17-cv-00221, 3:17-cv-00223, 3:17-cv-00224, 3:17-cv-00225, 3:17-cv-00227, 3:17-cv-00229, 3:17-cv-00230, 3:17-cv-00232, 3:17-cv-00233, 3:17-cv-00249, 3:17-cv-00250, 3:17-cv-00251, 3:17-cv-00252,  3:17-cv-00253, 3:17-cv-00254, 3:17-cv-00256, 3:17-cv-00257, 3:17-cv-00258, 3:17-cv-00259, 3:17-cv-00271, 3:17-cv-00272, 3:17-cv-00273, 3:17-cv-00274, 3:17-cv-00275, 3:17-cv-00276, 3:17-cv-00277, 3:17-cv-00278, 3:17-cv-00279, 3:17-cv-00280)

    Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (12)
    Attorney: Mary K. Schulz of the Media Litigation Firm, P.C.

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.138.51 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01183)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address96.95.112.34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01209)

    Cases Filed in the Maryland District Court (7)
    Attorney: Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”) of the Law Office of Jon a Hoppe, Esquire

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 8:17-cv-00397, 8:17-cv-00396, 1:17-cv-00402, 8:17-cv-00401, 1:17-cv-00398, 1:17-cv-00399, 8:17-cv-00400)

    Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (16)
    Attorney: Joel A. Bernier of Sheikh Legal Services PLLC
    176 S. Main St., Suite 1, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 ([email protected])

    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:17-cv-10422)
    v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
    v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
    v. IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
    v. IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
    v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
    v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
    v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
    v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
    v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
    v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
    v. IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
    v. IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
    v. IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
    v. IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
    v. IP Address 68.40.27.99 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10441)

    Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court (38)
    Attorney: Patrick Joseph Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”)

    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246, 2:17-cv-01251, 2:17-cv-01237, 2:17-cv-01240)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
    v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
    v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
    v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.57.99.138 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01321)

    Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court (10)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-01079, 2:17-cv-01078, 2:17-cv-01084, 2:17-cv-01077, 2:17-cv-01083, 2:17-cv-01076, 2:17-cv-01081, 2:17-cv-01080, 2:17-cv-01075, 2:17-cv-01082)

    Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court (30)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00983, 1:17-cv-00985, 1:17-cv-00987, 1:17-cv-00988, 1:17-cv-00989, 1:17-cv-00992, 1:17-cv-00994, 1:17-cv-00995, 1:17-cv-01065, 1:17-cv-01067, 1:17-cv-01068, 1:17-cv-01069, 1:17-cv-01070, 1:17-cv-01072, 1:17-cv-01074, 1:17-cv-01075, 1:17-cv-01076, 1:17-cv-01078, 1:17-cv-01088, 1:17-cv-01094, 1:17-cv-01095, 1:17-cv-01096, 1:17-cv-01097, 1:17-cv-01098, 1:17-cv-01099, 1:17-cv-01100, 1:17-cv-01101, 1:17-cv-01102, 7:17-cv-00981, 7:17-cv-00982)

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

    Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (8)
    Attorney: A. Jordan Rushie (“Jordan Rushie”) of Flynn Wirkus Young PC / Rushie Law

    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00662, 2:17-cv-00509, 2:17-cv-00506, 2:17-cv-00510, 2:17-cv-00508, 2:17-cv-00507, 2:17-cv-00512, 2:17-cv-00511)

    Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court (42)
    Attorney: Andrew Darshan Kumar (“Andrew Kumar”) and Michael J. Lowenberg (“Mike Lowenberg”) of the Lowenberg Law Firm

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:17-cv-00413, 4:17-cv-00415, Case No. 4:17-cv-00417, 4:17-cv-00418, 4:17-cv-00420, 4:17-cv-00421, 4:17-cv-00422, 4:17-cv-00423, 4:17-cv-00424, 4:17-cv-00425, 4:17-cv-00465, 4:17-cv-00466, 4:17-cv-00468, 4:17-cv-00469, 4:17-cv-00470, 4:17-cv-00471, 4:17-cv-00472, 4:17-cv-00473, 4:17-cv-00474, 4:17-cv-00475, 4:17-cv-00476, 4:17-cv-00477,  4:17-cv-00478, 4:17-cv-00479, 4:17-cv-00480, 4:17-cv-00481, 4:17-cv-00482, 4:17-cv-00483, 4:17-cv-00484, 4:17-cv-00485, 4:17-cv-00486, 4:17-cv-00487, 4:17-cv-00488, 4:17-cv-00489, 4:17-cv-00490, 4:17-cv-00491, 4:17-cv-00492, 4:17-cv-00493, 4:17-cv-00494, 4:17-cv-00495, 4:17-cv-00497, and 4:17-cv-00498.)

    Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (3)
    Attorney: John Carlin Decker, II (“John Decker”) of the Law Office of John C. Decker II
    5207 Dalby Lane, Burke, VA 22015 (John is still using his Verizon e-mail when he files the lawsuits — [email protected])

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00192, 1:17-cv-00193, 1:17-cv-00194)


    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.

      How Paul Beik names and serves Malibu Media LLC defendants.

      malibu-media-case-consolidations

      Paul Beik (Paul S. Beik of the Beik Law Firm PLLC) is a Texas-based plaintiff attorney who has “served” many defendants in Texas lawsuits for his Malibu Media LLC client (“served” as in someone knocking on a defendant’s door in a bittorrent copyright litigation lawsuit and handing the former John Doe Defendant a copy of the complaint; not “served” as in “thousands served” in a McDonald’s hamburger way). [Sorry for the play on words — that came out when editing this article.]

      Paul Beik has been naming and serving Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe defendants since 3/28/2018 (or at least 3/28/18 was the first time I contacted him before having a client served; prior to this, his predecessors Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm PLLC filed Malibu lawsuits in TX since 10/27/2016), but unlike Beik’s cases, their John Doe defendants were not regularly named and served.

      More generally, Malibu Media LLC has likely filed over ten thousand copyright infringement lawsuits against anonymous John Doe defendants since 2012 (I stopped counting in 2016, when Malibu temporarily stopped filing lawsuits, and even then, there were already 6,000+ cases filed across the US).

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

      Prior to Paul Beik taking over as Texas local counsel for Malibu Media LLC, while some Texas John Doe defendants were named and served here and there, most of them historically were never served. The reason for this is that Malibu Media LLC’s general counsel (currently represented by the Lomnitzer Law Firm in Florida) always let the local copyright attorneys (here, Paul Beik) decide how far into litigation they are willing to go — specifically whether they are willing to have the John Doe Defendants named and served.

      How Malibu Media LLC lets their attorneys “grow” on the job.

      [Again, the header is not to be taken out of context given the subject matter of the Malibu Media LLC adult film cases.]

      Malibu Media LLC’s general counsel often hires lawyers in each state who know federal procedure [but who do not necessarily know any copyright law]. They often let that attorney “learn on the job” by following instructions, templates, and scripts I believe are provided to every new Malibu Media LLC local counsel. I have referred to these new plaintiff attorneys in the past as “fresh meat,” because the filings in every Malibu Media LLC case look exactly the same as the filings I have seen in thousands of Malibu cases over the years filed in federal courts in California, New York, Michigan, and across the US.

      I have always called Malibu Media LLC cases “a settlement extortion scheme.” For years (prior to Paul Beik taking over the Texas Malibu Media cases, Malibu Media LLC cases were filed against anonymous John Doe Defendants, and they were dismissed as John Does (in my opinion, because of the squeamishness of previous Texas-based Malibu Media LLC attorneys to name and serve defendants and move forward against them in litigation). Not so with Paul Beik of Beik Law Firm PLLC.

      Paul Beik has served Malibu Media LLC Texas defendants in the US District ,Court for the Southern District of Texas with regularity. In filing the lawsuit, he uses the same (identical) wording that other Malibu Media LLC cases use in other federal courts making an attorney who is not paying attention think he is inexperienced [that link (above) merely goes to a reference to “settlement factories,” described below]. Even if you look at Paul Beik’s case dockets, his Texas-based Malibu Media LLC cases appear to be nearly identical to every other Malibu Media LLC case filed across the US.

      However, unlike many other “copyright troll” plaintiff attorneys, Paul Beik is not afraid to name and serve a defendant.

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

      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on naming and serving a defendant (the 90-day rule).

      The reason this is relevant is because 90 days after a complaint is filed in a federal court, FRCP Rule 4(m) gives a plaintiff attorney (here, Paul Beik) 90 days to amend the complaint and “name and serve” a John Doe defendant.

      Beik could also dismiss the case before the 90 days have elapsed [which almost never happens], or he can ask the court for an extension of time to have that Texas defendant named and served [that happens].

      The point here is that Paul Beik is under a procedural deadline to name and serve a defendant. Thus, whatever so-called “anonymous” settlement he can pull from the Malibu Media LLC John Doe defendant before the 90 days have elapsed, his client wants him to take.

      Unfortunately for some John Doe Defendants, when they do not respond to his requests for settlement or they do not hire an attorney to represent them in this case, as a matter of procedure, instead of dismissing the case without prejudice and saying to the accused defendant “just kidding,” Paul Beik moves forward with litigation and has that Texas defendant named and served .

      This is relevant because in litigation, there will become a time where the question of “whether the named and served Texas defendant actually downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles” becomes relevant. This happens in a deposition, where the defendant is placed under oath in front of a court reporter and the plaintiff attorney takes his testimony. *THIS* is where Paul Beik succeeds in forcing a settlement from a named and served Texas defendant who did not previously settle the claims against him.

      NOTE: *THIS* (deposition) is also the moment where the named and served Texas John Doe Defendant is dismissed from liability [to avoid having his client pay the defendant’s attorney fees].

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

      Paul Beik Malibu Media Texas settlement scheme
      Perlinator / Pixabay

      HOW PAUL BEIK HAS MALIBU MEDIA LLC DEFENDANTS SERVED.

      The complaint and request to disclose identity of subscriber.

      First, Beik files the complaint alleging copyright infringement of Malibu Media’s copyright adult film titles. He files the lawsuit against ONE anonymous “John Doe” defendant (who lives in the Texas state, so there is no motion to quash to file [the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant]). Beik mentions to the court that he does not yet know the identity of the defendant, and he asks the court to provide him an order to command the Comcast ISP (or AT&T ISP) to disclose the identity of the alleged downloader of Malibu Media LLC’s copyrighted titles.

      Because courts are friendly to copyright holders, the Texas judges grant Paul Beik his request and order the ISPs to provide him the information that he needs.

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

      The subpoena sent to the ISP ordering it to reveal the subscriber’s identity.

      Paul Beik then forwards a subpoena to the Comcast (or whichever) ISP, ordering the ISP to turn over the identity (and whatever else is approved by the court) of the account holder who was assigned the IP address at the time that the downloading of Malibu Media LLC’s adult titles took place.

      The ISP’s duty to protect their customer and steps they take.

      The ISPs are under a duty [an order, signed by the federal judge] to hand over this information to the plaintiff attorney (here, Paul Beik). To protect their customer, the ISP sends over [what I call] an ISP Subpoena Letter informing the Texas account holder that he has been implicated as a defendant in the Malibu Media LLC lawsuit.

      The ISP Subpoena Letter also informs the account subscriber that if they wish to stop them from handing over their information, they may file a motion to quash (they call it “an objection with the court”). A motion to quash, if successful, would prevent the ISP from handing over the account holder’s information to Beik Law Firm PLLC (the plaintiff attorney — Paul Beik’s office — NOT to the court).

      You can read more into motions to quash here (this isn’t the place to discuss this topic), but the jist of a motion to quash is that it tells the US District Court that it does not have “personal jurisdiction” over the defendant. This primarily occurs if the defendant lives outside of the state in which they were sued.

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

      Paul Beik is dangerous to John Doe defendants because he has them named and served.

      Unlike many other Malibu Media LLC attorneys who are running a settlement extortion scheme (“settle whether you did it or not”), Paul Beik actually takes the additional step of having the defendant who did not settle the claims again him named and served.

      In other words, if that Texas-based John Doe Defendant does not settle the claims against him or her, Paul Beik will amend the complaint and will add the actual ISP account subscriber’s name and address to the complaint. This forces the now “named and served” defendant into litigation, where they have 21 days to file an answer with the court or face a default judgement against them.

      This is where Paul Beik takes the Malibu Media LLC cases (which for years, I considered nothing more than a “bluff”) one step further than many others — he actually has his Texas John Doe Defendants named and served, forcing them into litigation whether they like it or not.

      Now obviously the purpose of this article was to identify Paul Beik as a Malibu Media LLC attorney, and to note that he DOES name and serve defendants. “Check.” This is not to say that he will not settle a case after a defendant is named and served — he will still settle a case, as this is the ultimate reason he has named and served the defendant [a settlement is more valuable to Malibu Media LLC than a judgement of $150,000 which they will never collect]. However, I simply want to point out that Paul Beik does name and serve defendants.

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

      A quick note about out-of-state settlement factory attorneys.

      Lastly, there are many out-of-state attorneys who are not licensed in Texas who are actively advertising and are trying to take as many Malibu Media LLC clients from across the US as they can. Among them are a few [what I call] “settlement factories” (settlement factories are attorneys who run a volume-based business; they try to scare every defendant into settling the claims against them, and in my opinion they cause far more problems for the defendant than they solve).

      There used to be only a small handful of attorneys who I considered settlement factories, but unfortunately, with the younger crowd graduating law school and joining the ranks, I am seeing more and more inexperienced lawyers throw up a shingle and a blog and act as if they are a legitimate law practice, when really they are just another “settlement factory.” I have even had confrontational experiences with these attorneys — many of whom did not understand copyright law at all, and one who even thought these cases were criminal. “Umm, no.”

      In short, if you are sued by Paul Beik, I strongly recommend that you hire a Texas-licensed attorney to handle your case. I don’t care if you hire my Cashman Law Firm PLLC (often I don’t even take clients, and here is why) or if you hire another Texas attorney who is competent to work in these cases (if I cannot represent you, I will happily refer you to an attorney in Texas who can assist you).

      While it is impossible to know which Texas-based Malibu Media LLC John Doe Defendants will be named and served, based on my knowledge of Paul Beik and his timing, I will do my best to list cases which at the moment are at risk of being named and served. TBA.

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


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Texas Malibu Media 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 Malibu Media 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.

        How similar are Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media lawsuits?

        strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

        Malibu Media lawsuits paved the way for Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas.

        In March of this year I suggested that the movie and music industry (MPAA / RIAA) used the porn industry to make way for the legitimacy of bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases we see legitimized today in a growing number of federal courts. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is the most recent beneficiary of the path forged by Malibu Media LLC with their John Doe lawsuits filed against accused downloaders of their “Tushy.com [NSFW],” “Vixen.com [NSFW],” and “Blacked.com [NSFW]” popular adult themed videos and websites.

        It is my opinion that Strike 3 Holdings LLC owes what will be their success to the Malibu Media LLC lawsuits. Malibu Media LLC, once seen as a roach of a company preying on its customers through its 6,000+ lawsuits filed nationwide now enjoys free reign in the federal courts, as will Strike 3 Holdings and the judges who blush at the adult themes they carry.

        I expect that judges will rubber-stamp and approve Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoenas just as they have been approving Malibu Media subpoena requests, knowing that they too will proceed on the merits of the lawsuit if their accused defendant does not settle the claims against him.

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

        Will the judges be as cooperative with Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, and my idea about why.

        [My personal wonder when sitting in court and looking at a judge keep a straight face when discussing the Malibu Media / X-Art.com cases is whether they themselves have watched these videos. The clerks and the court reporters are typically louder about them, but the judge that signs the order allowing discovery of defendants — is he doing so because he believes even pornographic films deserve copyright protection? Or is he hiding the fact that he has seen these videos himself? I further wonder whether the judges who adjudicate the “Tushy or Vixen” adult film movie lawsuits will be able to do so with similar stoic silence, as “Tushy” “Blacked” and “Vixen” videos have a viewership that makes Colette Pelissier’s Malibu Media / X-Art brand look like K-Mart in the shadow of Target.]

        Strike-3-Holdings-Blacked-Tushy-Vixen

        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about either Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases or Malibu Media, 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 or Malibu Media case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number)].

        Did you possibly connect Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings as being the same entity?

        I wouldn’t be the first to suspect that perhaps the same people behind the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits are the same as the people who are behind the upcoming Strike 3 Holdings LLC Tushy lawsuits, especially with the common thread between each of them being the Guardaley company each of them use to track the bittorrent networks to find victims for their next John Doe lawsuit.

        Also unlike the recent movie lawsuits BUT EXACTLY LIKE MALIBU MEDIA CASES, it appears as if Strike Three Holdings cases sue for the copyright infringement of one adult film movie, however, when an accused defendant attempts to settle the claims against him, he is also asked to settle a list of titles he also downloaded.

        While I could be wrong, although the two are similar in style and flare both in marketing techniques, lawsuit “troll” tactics, I understand from basic research that the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits and the coming “Tushy” Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are owned, operated, and run by very different people.  However, I wouldn’t be surprised for an instant to learn that Strike Three Holdings lawsuits learned EXACTLY how to run their lawsuits by mirroring the Malibu Media lawsuits.  To be more direct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Colette Pelissier and Brigham Field personally taught, mentored, and is possibly directly benefiting from Strike Three Holdings’ settlement tactics.

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

        Perhaps an investigation of where each is incorporated can shed some light.

        While the people behind the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits are real estate brokers who live in lavish, overpriced homes (in which they have been observed illegally filming their content in violation of the local laws), Strike 3 Holdings LLC trademark registrations all point to a 2140 S. Dupont Hwy, Camden, Deleware address (right next to the Rite Aid, the Venetian Jewelers store, an Este Pharma skin care clinic, and two business development companies — Parasec Inc., SeoSamba, and Patton Vision).

        However… no Strike 3 Holdings, LLC business presence or trace thereof.

        Maybe not.

        You know, after writing this, it occurred to me that the tax-sheltered Deleware address Strike 3 Holdings is using is FAKE, or that their lawyer, Anna Marie Vradenburgh of Thousand Oaks, CA rented them a mailbox on the corner of S. Dupont Highway and E. Camden Wyoming Ave. so that they can claim that their corporate entity is located in Deleware.

        You might also notice that Strike Three Holdings LLC’s lawyer is in California and Malibu Media, LLC is in… California (not Deleware).  Why would a Deleware company hire an obscure California attorney to file their corporate papers and trademark filings for them, unless perhaps the Deleware address is a fake?  [Look at the Google Map and ask yourself if you see Strike 3 Holdings, LLC].

        *UPDATE* Lawsuits now filed in DC

        In sum, the Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits are just beginning to warm up. And, while there are similarities between the adult film brands claimed in the Malibu Media lawsuits and the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, they appear to be different entities headed by different people (although you must admit that similarities are suspect). Hopefully they act differently too in the lawsuits as to how they treat their own attorneys and their cases.

        Strike 3 Holdings have even now started filing single John Doe lawsuits as well.

        Last Thought: Should we apply NPE status to copyright trolls?

        What I don’t like about each of these movie (or here, “adult film”) cases is the slick non-transparency between who the copyright holder is, who is actually the party filing the lawsuit, and who the interested parties are in the lawsuit.  Honestly, historically, the “patent troll” problem was solved by making the distinction between inventors and NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES (NPEs).  I wonder if NPE status should also be applied to copyright trolls as well.

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

        (2/25/2020 UPDATE) RECENT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES

        IN 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)

        IN 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)

        IN 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. > > >

        IN 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)

        IN 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. > > >

        IN 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)

        IN 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)

        IN 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)

        IN 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)

        IN 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. > > >

        BLOG POSTS:

        Article(s) Written on the Strike 3 Holdings cases:

        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

        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


        [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 [email protected], 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.

          Malibu Media Anonymous Settlement is a misnomer.

          malibu-media-case-consolidations

          MALIBU MEDIA ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS, BUYER BEWARE.

          The purpose of this article is to specifically discuss the prospect of a Malibu Media Anonymous Settlement. A Malibu Media lawsuit targets users based on bittorrent activities tracked over a long period of time. Malibu Media copyright infringement lawsuits are filed with a federal court, Malibu Media subpoenas are sent to ISP subscribers, and after realizing that filing a motion to quash may or may not be the best option, deciding whether to negotiate a settlement or to fight becomes the main consideration.

          Malibu Media settlements themselves (not even considering a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, as we will discuss below) are very expensive — not because they ask for a lot of money for the bittorrent download of one X-art adult film, but because they ask for the settlement of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE MALIBU MEDIA MOVIES YOU MAY HAVE DOWNLOADED OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS.  Thus, instead of asking for a settlement of, say, $3,500 for the download of one copyrighted video (as other copyright holders do), they’ll ask for a settlement of ALL 50 MOVIES they claim you downloaded over the last three (3) years.  This article will go into the various pitfalls a defendant may face when being lured into a Malibu Media anonymous settlement.

          NOTE: BEFORE READING THIS ARTICLE: If you have not already done so, and you are implicated as a John Doe in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, read these first:
          1) “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) Lawsuit [FAQ]

          2) “In-Depth Malibu Media.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements

          FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

          Malibu Media’s list of “movies infringed” is often INCOMPLETE (and for a reason).

          If you choose to fight and defend the claims against you, Malibu Media subpoena lawsuits have ‘slick tricks’ built into their lawsuits.  They file each lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of only one (1) video, and they list (for example,) the fifty (50) videos they claim you downloaded over the years.  However, they hold back information from the court and they do not list the newest X-Art videos you have downloaded in the recent months.  Thus, if the lawsuit was filed in July, 2017 they’ll only list downloads you participated in until February, 2017.  This leaves all of the Malibu Media downloads you participated in between February 2017 – July 2017 off of the lawsuit.

          Why would they do this?  Because they know that when you start fighting your case, you might dispute a number of their claims.  You might even go line-by-line and claim that they did not follow the copyright laws in protecting their rights (e.g., Malibu Media has consistently fudged the ‘publication’ requirement, as I have fought with them on this topic in the past).  Even if you tried to negotiate a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, they still anticipated a way to trick you (more on this “John Doe, subscriber having IP address XYZ” issue below).  However, whether you are right or wrong, they always keep “extra ammunition” of other Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) titles you downloaded as a threat against you fighting them on the merits.  For example, they might say “If you argue that this list is not accurate, we actually have many more titles we believe you have downloaded — we can list these too if you would like.”

          Obviously it is more complicated than this, but point being, I have seen that Malibu Media LLC lawsuits always keeps some set of information ‘off of the table,’ and they reserve this information to gain additional leverage when an inexperienced attorney tries to fight them on the line-by-line details of their case (which, by the way, is often flawed or contains copy-and-paste mistakes from other lawsuits).  This creates a dangerous situation for the accused defendant who gets lured by his attorney into a Malibu Media anonymous settlement.

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

          Malibu Media anticipated anonymous settlements and built in a way to re-sue defendants who settled (or, re-approach them and ask for more money).

          Now as far as negotiating a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, Malibu Media has been ‘slick’ here too.  Their lawsuits do not implicate you, a “John Doe” defendant, who has had many IP addresses over the past few years.  Rather, they implicate only “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244,” a John Doe defendant who has been assigned a specific IP address on one day.

          SPOILER: The Malibu Media anonymous settlement settling a John Doe case (no IP address specified) is different from a Malibu Media anonymous settlement settling a John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address XYZ case.

          IP addresses are assigned to internet users when their router connects their computer to the internet.  That IP address does not belong to that internet user; rather, it is “leased” to that internet user for a limited time, usually 24 hours, 48 hours, or until they reboot their modem or otherwise obtain a new IP address.  Thus, the IP address you have today might not be the same IP address you had yesterday, and so on.  Now IP addresses are pulled from a limited pool of addresses, so a particular internet service provider (“ISP”) might assign the same IP address to a customer for a few days in a row, but that IP address does not belong to that internet user.  If it did, it would be called a “static IP address” which is significantly more expensive than the residential “dynamic IP addresses” leased to residential ISP customers.

          Why is this relevant to you, the person behind the John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244 title?  Because IF you settled anonymously, you would be settling as John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244, and not as the John Doe Defendant having had many IP addresses leased to him.  Thus, Malibu Media, LLC could easily take your $12,000 settlement payment, say thank you, and then sue you again under a different “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING ELSE]” for this same set of movies allegedly downloaded.  If you settled anonymously, your attorney would have ‘unwittingly’ opened you up to this problem, because John Doe subscriber assigned IP address X is a different fictitious legal entity than John Doe subscriber assigned IP address Y.  This sounds like semantics, but buyer beware.  Doing this wrong can open you up to being solicited for another settlement for downloads that were done by “another John Doe subscriber.”

          In sum, beware of the settlement factory attorney who tries to convince you to settle the claims against you “anonymously.”  In a Malibu Media, LLC case, doing so is simply reckless.

          Malibu Media anonymous settlement “price gouging.”

          Further, negotiating a Malibu Media anonymous settlement gives the Malibu Media copyright troll attorneys an opportunity to price gouge their settlement prices.  Why?  Because an attorney who comes to them asking them to settle anonymously (without disclosing to Malibu Media the identity of the defendant) prompts the Malibu Media attorney to inquire why that defendant wants to settle anonymously.  “What does he have to hide?,” they ask.

          Immediately upon learning that the accused defendant wants to settle anonymously, they recognize that the defense attorney has lost all leverage in negotiating the settlement price, and they’ll “spike” the cost of the settlement.  “Anonymous settlements come at a price,” they may say.

          Malibu Media anonymous settlement
          geralt / Pixabay

          Attorneys Advocating “Anonymous Settlements” are Deceiving You.

          Thus, it is important to understand the mechanics of a settlement before jumping to ask for an anonymous settlement.  What most accused Malibu Media defendants do not realize is that the settlements ARE ALREADY ANONYMOUS [with minimal tweaking] without the defendant having to ask for it.  A diligent attorney will negotiate a confidentiality clause into the settlement agreement (or strengthen one that is already in their boilerplate settlement agreement) to prevent their attorneys from disclosing the identity of the defendant with anyone.

          This means that your attorney can (and should) put your name in the settlement agreement itself.  This avoids the entire John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING] issue, because it is actually the real person (not the fictitious John Doe legal entity having a particular IP address) who is settling.

          Rather than taking the effort to actually negotiate the terms of the agreement, your settlement factory attorney will try to convince you that you won’t suffer if you try to settle anonymously.

           [This not only alleviates them of the need to negotiate the terms of the agreement, but it also allows them to use their “turn key” boilerplate e-mails, which the plaintiff attorneys (who have already agreed to a pre-arranged inflated settlement price) already know and recognize, so that they can ‘spike’ the settlement amount, gouge the settling defendant, and charge higher prices.  I won’t go into the dishonest attorney issue, kickbacks, etc., as I have written about these issues before.]

          Once an accused Malibu Media defendant realizes that it is okay to allow his attorney to put his name in the settlement agreement, at that point, the Malibu Media settlement agreement itself covers 1) ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT regarding 2) ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’S TITLES, and based on the wording of the CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE in the agreement the settlement truly becomes a “Malibu Media anonymous settlement.”

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

          Let’s look into this one level deeper, just to be sure that we have also solved the other ‘slick tricks’ Malibu Media lawsuits have built into their cases.

          1) “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT”

          Because the settlement agreement containing the name of the accused defendant (and not the so-called ‘anonymous’ fictitious John Doe entity), the settlement will cover “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.”  This means that the settlement will cover even those downloads that Malibu Media, LLC purposefully “left out” from the list of infringements filed with the lawsuit.  Further, the Malibu Media settlement agreement WILL EVEN THOSE DOWNLOADS MADE BY A “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” HAVING AN IP ADDRESS WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” IMPLICATED AS THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.

          In other words, by negotiating the terms of a Malibu Media settlement, but having the confidentiality clause protect the client’s identity, the settlement agreement having the client’s real name on it will not only be a true Malibu Media anonymous settlement, but it will also cover any other fictitious “John Doe” entity that could have downloaded any of Malibu Media movies, ever.

          2) “ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’S TITLES”

          Malibu Media settlement agreements used to be very specific as to which specific Malibu Media titles were being settled, and the settlement used to cover ONLY THOSE TITLES and no other titles allegedly downloaded.  This was back when the Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-1000 cases were still being filed.

          Immediately we recognized that this limitation of the scope of the agreement to ONLY THOSE KNOWN TITLES DOWNLOADED exposed the client to multiple lawsuits for 1) Malibu Media movie titles that Malibu Media ‘slickly’ left out of their list, or 2) Malibu Media titles which their Guardaley investigators missed.  Thus today, when we negotiate a Malibu Media settlement, the settlement necessarily includes ALL PAST ACTS of copyright infringement FOR ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’s MOVIES.

          In sum, when dealing with a copyright troll such as Malibu Media, LLC, and you see that they do something innocuous such as changing the lawsuit names from “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe” to “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 214.42.955.8,” realize that THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOR A REASON.

          What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?

          [2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened.  The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.


          FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:

          1) “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) Lawsuit [FAQ],” and then

          2) “In-Depth Malibu Media.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements.”

          FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

          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.

            shalta book now cta

            Malibu Media California cases ordered to reveal geolocation accuracy.

            malibu-media-case-consolidations

            It is nice to see when a house of cards starts to shake.  It reminds me that with a gentle blow, all the cards can come tumbling down.  SJD shares that Malibu Media California Cases (X-Art) are about to experience some wind.

            Kudos to Sophisticated Jane Doe at Fight Copyright Trolls for breaking this story.  Her article, entitled “Judge Alsup threatens to bar further Malibu Media cases in his district until the accuracy of the geolocation technology is fully vetted” is a worthwhile read. This is true EVEN for those who do not delve into the details of what happens in Malibu Media California cases versus Malibu Media Texas cases filed by Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg.

            [FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:If you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:

            1) “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) Lawsuit [FAQ],” and then
            2) “In-Depth Malibu Media.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements.”

            FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.]

            California Judge Alsup Order Asks To Scrutinize Maxmind Geolocation Services.

            Malibu Media, LLC has filed 6,000+ lawsuits across the US relying on a Maxmind geolocation database which they use to determine which infringers to sue (based on their city and/or zip code), and in which federal court to sue them.

            The zip code data becomes relevant internally because Malibu Media targets accused defendants who live in ‘wealthy’ neighborhoods and ignores defendants who they believe do not have the ‘assets’ to pay them the ransom they demand from each accused downloader.

            Taken from Maxmind’s site, they even offer services which provide their customers the estimated average income of each infringer so that Malibu Media can focus their efforts on only the ‘highest income infringers.’

            Average Income (US Only)The weighted average income in US dollars per person for the zip code(s) associated with the IP address.

            More relevant to the Malibu Media California cases and SJD’s article, geolocation data is important because filing a lawsuit against a defendant who does not live in that district deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the case against that defendant.  This is called ‘personal jurisdiction.’

            But, in the California Malibu Media Cases, this “Maxmind” service might cause the downfall of all of the Malibu Media California cases.  Why?  Because Judge Alsup is about to figure out exactly how the geolocation services work.

            You could bet that if they fall in California, I will be sharing what made those cards fall with the judges in Texas, NJ, NY, (and since I follow Malibu plaintiff attorney Jackie James around with her Malibu Media cases), CT too.  Why?  Because California Judge Alsup’s rulings are binding only in the California federal courts.  However, in all other federal courts, they are still PERSUASIVE.

            If I had one wish, it would be for Judge Alsup to also review the Guardaley Black Box.

            Not to look a gifthorse in the mouth, but when I wrote this article initially, I thought that Judge Alsup was going to investigate Guardaley’s black box.  Here is why:

            Malibu Media California Cases | Soon to fall like a House of Cards
            wilhei / Pixabay

            “Because we download fragments from you, you must have the entire file.”

            The Guardaley bittorrent tracking system dips in to various bittorrent swarms and connects with computers to download tiny bittorrent file fragments with the logic that if the download from a particular internet user’s computer was successful, then [LOGIC JUMP] that user must have the entire file downloaded on his computer.

            This identical black box issue applies to the other MOVIE LAWSUITS too.

            It should be noted that without getting into conspiracy theories about how the MPAA / RIAA colluded with Malibu Media, LLC and the other pornography companies to break copyright, other mainstream movie cases potentially ‘have egg on their faces’ too with Judge Alsup’s order.

            Why?  Because whether we are dealing with a Malibu Media, LLC case, a ME2 Productions case, a Cook Productions case, a I.T. Productions case, or even a WWE Studios Finance Corp. movie… you are still dealing with RIGHTSENFORCEMENT, Carl Crowell, Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), and ultimately… Guardaley, the German company behind each of the various US-based shell companies selling rights to use their black box bittorrent tracking software.

            I could also bet that these same companies are likely using the same “Maxmind” geolocation services as well (since they cut-and-paste their boilerplate strategies, whether applying their system to internet users accused of downloading pornography, e-books, or movie content).

            How much of the infringing file must you have for Malibu Media to prove copyright infringement?

            If Judge Alsup continues to investigate Malibu Media’s cases beyond the Maxmind geolocation services, I encourage him to also investigate the Guardaley black box.

            QUESTIONS TO ASK:  Judge Alsup might ask how the system chooses to connect to the computers, and whether it randomly selects one “block” (a file fragment; often 16 KB in size) hundreds of blocks, or millions of blocks (Malibu Media bittorrent files (“.torrent” files) usually comprise a siterip which contains multiple movie files contained in one bittorrent “.torrent” file.  

            Each movie file can be hundreds of MEGABYTES large, and the total bittorrent “.torrent” file can potentially be MULTIPLE GIGABYTES large).

            Simplifying the numbers:  Assuming a .torrent file contains 1GB of movie files (1GB = 1,000 MB = 1,000,000 KB), and that 1GB torrent is broken down into 16 KB blocks (file fragments), then the Malibu Media X-Art Movie bittorrent will be broken down into 62,500 blocks.  If Malibu Media’s Guardaley black box shows that they have successfully downloaded 100 separate 16KB blocks, that means that they have established only that accused infringer has downloaded 1.6 MB of a 1 GB torrent file.  

            At 200 KB/s (not going into the minute differences between a Kilobyte and a Kilobit), that means that the downloader participated in the bittorrent swarm downloading Malibu Media’s Siterip content for a total of 8 seconds, and that they have only 1.6 MB of Malibu’s X-Art movie (1.6 MB of 1 GB = .0000016% of Malibu’s Siterip, hardly enough to prove that it was “more likely than not” that the accused John Doe Defendant committed copyright infringement.

            If Malibu Media’s Guardaley black box is selecting and connecting to only a small number of blocks (a small set of file fragments, noting that there are potentially tens of thousands of blocks needed to complete a download) this does not prove that the accused defendant downloaded anything more than the number blocks the Guardaley black box software tracked the user as possessing on his or her computer.

            Malibu Media California Cases and the “Preponderance of Evidence Standard”

            Malibu Media, LLC will counter that the evidence they need to prove is “more likely than not,” namely, that it is more likely than not that the accused downloader downloaded enough of the infringing file to constitute copyright infringement.  This is also called the “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof in legal speak.  Thus, Malibu Media, LLC will not need to prove that the entire file was downloaded; only that ‘it was more likely than not’ that the file was downloaded.

            However, for the Malibu Media California cases, I am hoping that the plaintiff attorney will need to prove to Judge Alsup that this is the case, and to do this, they will have to open their black box software up to Daubert-level scrutiny.  If they fail in this task, Malibu Media California cases will end and the next ‘wave’ of cases will need to be spread across other federal courts, sans California.  Looking into the geolocation technologies (which Malibu Media, LLC claims is 100% accurate), however, is a good start.

            He just used the words…”HEARSAY.”

            Of interest to me is something that Fight Copyright Troll’s article didn’t talk about — namely, that UNLESS THE MAXMIND GEOLOCATION SERVICES CAN BE VETTED, the printouts and data Maxmind purports to share about an accused John Doe Defendant’s location is nothing other than HEARSAY.  (See Judge Alsup’s Order, p.2, line 12).

            The declaration parroted several hearsay statements about the accuracy of Maxmind from its website.

            To the copyright troll attorneys who read my blog to learn what we are thinking about as far as strategy: While I am not making a big deal to flush out the hearsay issue, I just wanted to take a moment to point out that those same words just came out of Judge Alsup’s mouth.  Namely, that the so-called geolocation evidence that the Maxmind services provide might not even be admissible at trial because the it is considered HEARSAY, and likely not admissible under the hearsay exceptions.

            Since these words came out of his mouth, I bet it is a good idea to have a good explanation prepared why the data provided by the Maxmind geolocation service should not be considered hearsay and thus inadmissible as you are trying to reach that “more likely than not” evidence standard.

            What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?

            [2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened.  The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.


            FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

            CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  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.

              shalta book now cta
              Skip to content