COMBAT ZONE

I have added this page for internet users who have been entangled in the Combat Zone cases.  The goal here 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., “Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-33 (Case No. 1:12-cv-04132) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find on the http://www.rfcexpress.com website where Combat Zone is listed as the plaintiff.

Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

19 thoughts on “COMBAT ZONE”

  1. CASES FILED BY MARVIN N. CABLE OF LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN N. CABLE IN THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHSETTS:
    Combat Zone, Inc. v. Does 1-84 (Case No. 3:12-cv-30085)
    Combat Zone, Inc. v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 3:12-cv-30086)

    CASES FILED BY MIKE MEIER OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW GROUP IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-33 (Case No. 1:12-cv-04132)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-34 (Case No. 1:12-cv-04133)

    CASES FILED BY DOUGLAS MCINTYRE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-192 (4:12-cv-00774)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-158 (4:12-cv-00773)

  2. New cases as of 7/27/2012:

    CASES FILED BY DOUGLAS MCINTYRE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-26 (4:12-cv-02243)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-14 (4:12-cv-02247)

  3. Combat Zone Corp., a.k.a., Combat Zone Inc. (they cannot seem to get this straight in their lawsuits) seems to be wanting to sue internet users to stop the piracy of their MANY films, but it seems that they have simply had bad luck figuring out which attorney to use to sue, and in which court(s) to sue.

    In short, they attorney hop. If they don’t like one attorney, they hire another. As you can see, they started out using Doug McIntyre who filed against Does here in the Southern District of Texas. Then, seeing the news media Mike Meier and the Copyright Enforcement Group generated in their lawsuits, Combat Zone hired them too.

    Now as of this morning, they hired a new guy (new troll?) named Thomas G. Jacks (a.k.a. “Thomas Jacks” and “Tom Jacks”) of Chalker Flores LLP to file against defendants in the Northern District of Texas. Apparently Tom is a new guy, as he hasn’t figured out how to title his cases yet.

    The case is:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. John/Jane Does (Case No. 3:12-cv-02550-B, where “B” stands for Judge Boyle) in the Northern District of Texas.

    They got lucky though with their last filing, because Judge Boyle was not one of the judges that brought down the Larry Flynt Productions, Inc. (“LFP, Inc.”) cases back in 2010.

    What I don’t get though — and this is where I think they keep screwing up by their choice of attorneys — is: Why didn’t they just go ahead and hire Evan Stone? He is no doubt notorious up there, and yes, he has been slapped around a few too many times by the judges with sanctions and what-not. However, if Evan filed a few of Combat Zone‘s cases in small numbers, e.g., v. Does 1-14, v. Does 1-26, I think the judges would have let it move forward.

  4. RT @Drifter from the Fight Copyright Trolls website:

    “It seems that one of the copyright troll groups is testing the ground in Mississippi. On August 3rd, a troll named Thomas G. Jacks filed a suilt against 3 Does in the Mississippi Northern District Court for adult film company Combat Zone Corp. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/mississippi-northern-district-court/101493/combat-zone-corp-v-john-and-jane-does-1-2/summary/

  5. NEW CASES FILED BY COMBAT ZONE CORP. AS OF 08/27/12:

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 1:12-cv-00413)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-4 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00470)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-2 (Case No. 2:12-cv-00509)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-3 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00559)

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-4 (Case No. 1:12-cv-01963)

    CASES FILED BY PAUL A. LESKO OF SIMMONS & BROWDER LLP IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 1:12-cv-01963)

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-2 (Case No. 2:12-cv-00142)

    CASES FILED BY PAUL A. LESKO OF SIMMONS, BROWDER, GIANARIS, ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLP IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-75 (Case No. 3:12-cv-00890)

  6. New cases as of 10/17/12:

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-5 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02587)

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02910)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02972)

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 3:12-cv-03924)
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-5 (Case No. 3:12-cv-04005)

    CASES FILED BY THOMAS G. JACKS OF CHALKER FLORES LLP IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI:
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-3 (Case No. 5:12-cv-00140)

  7. I did a pacer search but couldn’t find the exact details for the cases above, i.e. alleged IP addresses. Is it possible to find this information?

  8. I couldn’t find it. I looked under documents and it mentions complaint but no other specifics.
    On a related note, do these people have any kind of success rate?

  9. [Yesterday Raul commented, I copied and pasted his comment]

    In Combat Zone v. Does 1-11 (TXSD 12-cv-2910) the judge (name cannot be discerned) authorizes expedited discovery AND written interrogatories and depositions prior to service of process and with any procedural safeguards. In other words the order authorizes the troll to invade the privacy of 11 citizens so as to threaten, intimidate, harass and take undue advantage.

Leave a Reply

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

Motions to Quash ISP Subpoena Letters, Malibu Media Lawsuits, Rightscorp DMCA Settlement Notices, and Helping John Does.