Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Lawsuits are NOT copyright lawsuits.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

MIAMI DADE COUNTY STRIKE 3 CASES SUE TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE DOWNLOADER, NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Strike 3 Holdings LLC is NOT suing defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami Dade County Court in Miami-Dade, Florida. However, they are copying what John Steele of Prenda Law Inc. [now in prison] did with his Lightspeed Media Hacker cases.

Instead of filing a lawsuit against an accused bittorrent downloader in federal court, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is asking the Miami Dade County Court to reveal the identity of the owners of the accounts from which the downloading allegedly occurred. There is no claim of copyright infringement nor is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asking the court for money damages.

Once Strike 3 Holdings, LLC receives the identity and contact information, Strike 3 will likely then threaten a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court if that defendant does not settle the claims against them by paying them settlement money to the tune of thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.

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

The Florida-based legal mechanism that Strike 3 Holdings is using is called a Pure Bill of Discovery. I saw these years ago when copyright troll attorneys decided to avoid the federal courts and try to solicit settlements out-of-court under the “threat” that they would file a lawsuit if the defendant did not pay them thousands of dollars.

A Pure Bill of Discovery tells the court, “So-and-so IP address was seen downloading my copyrighted film. I want to see whether the account holder is the downloader so that I can sue him in federal court. Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I can research my claim.” In reality, the request should be “Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I will demand from him thousands of dollars or else I will threaten to sue him.”

I did not like Pure Bills of Discovery then, and I do not like them now. A Pure Bill of Discovery does not protect the identity of the accused defendant from sleazy attorneys using their contact information to extort them for everything they have.

You can read about the Pure Bill of Discovery topic here.

miami-dade-county-strike-3 miami dade county strike 3 holdings scheme
Perlinator / Pixabay

In the Miami Dade County Florida court, the plaintiff attorneys are Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker — both Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorneys who in the past, filed copyright infringement lawsuits against John Doe defendants in federal courts.

However, apparently these attorneys must have done their research on what John Steele [now in prison], Paul Duffy [now R.I.P.], and Mark Lutz [?] have done in the past, and they must have thought, “why not avoid the federal courts all-together? Let us do exactly what John Steele and his gang did before they were arrested.”

I initially thought these attorneys wanted to avoid the $400 filing fee, but Miami Dade County has a $300 filing fee. Thus, my only guess as to what these attorneys are up to is that they must be trying to avoid the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judge’s scrutiny of their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases (to avoid having them ask whether their lawsuits comprise a settlement extortion scheme).

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

RACHEL WALKER AND TYLER MAMONE, STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS FEDERAL COURT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS.

Here, Strike 3 Holdings is not suing only Florida-based defendants. Rather, they are suing defendants from across the country. This is noteworthy, because it shows that they have chosen FLORIDA because of its laws (and the ability to use the Pure Bill of Discovery to circumvent the federal court discovery rules to obtain the contact information of each accused defendant). This is also called forum shopping.

Rachel Walker and/or Tyler Mamone (the plaintiff attorneys) have asked the court to order that each ISP provide the name and address of the ISP subscriber who was assigned the IP address on the date and time when the alleged instance of copyright infringement occurred. Again, they are not asking for money damages — only subscriber contact information.

Which obscure ISPs have been ordered to share their subscribers’ contact information?

ISPs involved in the Miami-Dade County-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases include:

Condointernet.net, Clarksville Department of Electricity, Hotwire Fision, Webpass, US Internet, Wave Broadband, Sonic.net, Sail Internet, Consolidated Smart Systems LLC, San Bruno Cable, CenturyLink [not so obscure], and others.

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC appears to have already succeeded in their Miami Dade County Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.

Accused defendants are now receiving letters from their ISPs (here, obscure ISPs) telling them that the ISP is under a duty to hand over their contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

Here is my thought: If the accused defendants are already receiving letters, it suggests to me that the courts have starting granting the relief asked for by Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone.

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC MIAMI DADE COUNTY PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY TIMELINE.

To date, I count only ten (10) Pure Bill of Discovery lawsuits filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC against “Unknown Infringers Identified on Exhibit 1.”

However, when I looked at the “Exhibit 1” of each lawsuit, I saw potentially hundreds of defendants hidden inside each case.

This means that this could be the start of Miami Dade state-based copyright trolling on a massive scale. The cases were apparently first filed on 9/23/2019 and the most recent filing is this past Tuesday, 10/29. No doubt more cases will follow.

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

MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:

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

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

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

*8/18/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has put a stop to these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. For reference, below are older cases that have been closed. This might seem like good news, but watch the federal court filings — the John Does from these cases are the ones now being sued in the federal courts across the US.

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

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

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

MY FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT MIAMI DADE PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY CASES.

In sum, this is not the first time I have seen a Pure Bill of Discovery case, and I have dealt with them in the past. I personally think that states that still have this cause of action are backwards and judges should not allow plaintiff attorneys to use these cases to perpetuate a grand settlement extortion scheme.

I also know that Miami Dade County Court is not the only place these Pure Bill of Discovery cases were filed. There are a few select other courts across the US that a Pure Bill of Discovery was attempted, and the results were the same.

In sum, if Strike 3 Holdings is now trying to avoid the federal courts in order to perpetuate their settlement extortion scheme outside of the federal court’s scrutiny, these cases are about to become much dirtier than they already were.

Defendants: Is the threat to sue for copyright infringement a bluff? No.

As far as options on what to do if you receive a notice from your ISP on this lawsuit — an accused defendant is going to face the threat of a federal court copyright infringement lawsuit in their own state’s federal court if they do not settle.

If they call the bluff of the plaintiff attorney and say “come and sue me,” this is not a deterrent to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney will simply sue that individual as a “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [INSERT IP ADDRESS],” then once the lawsuit is filed in the federal court, they will threaten to name and serve the defendant if he does not settle the claims against him.

In sum:
“I don’t like these Pure Bill of Discovery cases. I do not like them at all.”

If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.

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


[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.

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

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

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

Settlement Factory Attorneys are not Disclosing their Past Outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases receive scrutiny from proactive federal judge.

Florida Manny Film cases receive scrutiny from a proactive federal judge.

3/17 UPDATE: Judge Matthewman filed the identical “order to show cause” as described in yesterday’s “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article. (Thanks to SJD @fightcopytrolls’ Twitter post [and link] for tipping me off to this trend.)

What this means is that as of this afternoon, the judge has begun to scrutinize the other Manny Film, LLC cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court (this time, Case No. 9:15-cv-80298). This one is due April 1st, 2015. I would not be surprised if the judge continues to go down the list of “Manny Film” cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court and kills each one, one “order to show cause” at a time.

It is also important to note that in my estimation, the Manny Film LLC lawsuits are “cut-and-paste” lawsuits copied from the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits filed across the United States.  Unfortunately for Keith Lipscomb (the mastermind behind each of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, and now, the mastermind behind each and every Manny Film LLC lawsuit soon-to-be-filed across the U.S. District Courts), these ‘orders to show cause’ pose an existential threat to not only the Florida-based federal cases, but also to the other Manny Film LLC cases filed in the other federal district courts (upon which these Florida federal cases [when considered by the other federal judges] will be PERSUASIVE).

EDUCATIONAL NOTE: Even if all of the Manny Film LLC cases go away, the “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article is still helpful to discuss the concept that “an IP address (even one tracked to a particular defendant’s address using “solid” geolocation software) is INSUFFICIENT to identify and sue the account holder as the defendant in a bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.” Using the geolocation data alone as their source of “evidence” to support their claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff cannot properly state that the defendant 1) lives in the district for venue purposes, and 2) the plaintiff arguably even “fails to state a claim” against the accused defendant (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) language) because such geolocation software “evidence” does not prove (or sufficiently state) that the accused defendant is the downloader.


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 boook now cta

Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)

Manny Black Eye

It appears to me as if the Manny Film geolocatoin-based bittorrent piracy lawsuits in Southern Florida have just received their first black eye.

The Federal District Court in Florida has been grappling these past few years with the question of whether geolocation software is sufficient to identify the accused downloader. In short, federal venue rules (according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a)) state (in the context of a bittorrent piracy lawsuit) that in order for a copyright holder to file a lawsuit against a John Doe Defendant, the copyright holder must assert that the accused John Doe Defendant a) lives in the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed, and b) that a substantial part of the downloading and/or uploading happened in the federal district. The purpose for this is so that the defendant is sued in the right court.

However, in following the “bouncing ball” of the legal argument at play, the Florida federal court has realized that the plaintiff and all of its complicated geolocation software cannot prove the identity of any defendant. Not even one.

The Manny Film plaintiff can prove an IP address was connected to a bittorrent swarm that was downloading and distributing an unlicensed copy of the copyrighted film. They can prove that the IP address can be traced to a location (e.g., the accused downloader’s house). However, there is a logical gap between knowing the location where the download happened, and knowing that the accused defendant [most frequently, the account holder] was the downloader.

HERE’S THE KICKER… if the geolocation software cannot assert who the downloader is, how can the Manny Film LLC copyright holder assert 1) that the accused downloader was the one who was using the computer to download the copyrighted film (they have not placed him at the keyboard at the time of the download), and 2) if the Manny Film LLC copyright holder cannot bring any proof through their geolocation software — their only source of evidence — to determine who the accused downloader is, how can they competently state for the purposes of satisfying the venue requirement that the the accused downloader (whoever he or she might be) lives in the state in which the lawsuit is filed?

“Judge, I don’t know who the downloader is, but if I did know, he would live in your district!” – Copyright Troll

This brings me back to this nuanced argument where I was trying to frame it in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here is an e-mail that I wrote on November 8th, 2012 (remember, our older articles are still relevant even today):

I don’t know how to put this more plainly, and I HATE a “silver-bullet” argument, but I fail to see the weakness in a [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)] motion for failure to state a claim where the plaintiffs only know a) that an IP address downloaded the stuff, and b) that the named defendant is the account holder. It’s a fine point [which in my mind can be hammered home in the courts] but I understand the argument to be that assuming everything in the plaintiff’s complaint to be true, there is nothing that implicates the named defendant to be the person who did the download. In other words, there is no conclusive link [perhaps I need to do more research as to how strong the link needs to be to survive a 12(b)(6) motion] between the real defendant as referenced in the complaint [or who this person should be], and the named defendant [the ISP account holder].

Two analogies — 1) someone makes an incriminating phone call; there is no proof that the person who pays the phone bill (subscriber) made the call; 2) someone’s car does damage — [barring the negligence claim, which other attorneys here have done a wonderful job of killing] is the owner liable for torts that are committed with his car if the plaintiff cannot prove that he was in the car when it caused the damage?

In short, an IP address is NOT a person, and proving that an IP address did the download does not prove that the subscriber was the one who did the download. 

So, turning back to the Manny Film LLC (Case No. 9:15-cv-80290) case in the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman references various Malibu Media LLC films lawsuit orders, and in turn orders the Manny Film LLC plaintiff to answer the same questions which killed the Malibu Media v. John Doe (Case No. 14-cv-20213) case and related cases.  In the Malibu Media, LLC 14-CV-20213 case, (just for completeness,) Judge Ungaro stated “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”

The plaintiff has until March 31st, 2015 to do so, or else his Manny Film LLC cases filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will all be in jeopardy (remember, a ruling in one case in a particular district is BINDING on other cases in that district).

[HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) LITTLE DID I KNOW BACK IN 2015 THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS.

COMMON THREAD: GUARDALEY. GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT IT IS NOW COMING OUT THAT THEY WERE ALSO BEHIND OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S., LIKELY — EVEN THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS I WROTE ABOUT HERE.]


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 [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

Also see: Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.” (3/13/2015)

OTHER AFFECTED MANNY FILM LLC CASES:

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.

An article about Manny Film LLC lawsuits shifts towards Defense Attorney Tamaroff who once represented defendants but became a copyright troll.

Manny Copyright Troll

PERSONAL NOTE: I started writing this article about the Manny Pacquiao film lawsuits, and the more I read about the cases, the more upset I got. The gist of the article was originally going to be that the same plaintiff “copyright troll” attorneys who have been filing cases against John Doe Defendants for their Malibu Media LLC client are the same attorneys for the many Manny Film LLC cases filed across the U.S.  Thus, we will be able to predict when representing clients what they will be doing with these lawsuits.

However, there is a real story here with the Manny Film LLC lawsuits, and that story is how the copyright trolls have succeeded in luring those who I considered my peers (fellow defense attorneys) to switch sides to the plaintiff “copyright troll” side of these abusive lawsuits and start suing the very same group of people they once built their reputation swearing to protect. That’s the real story.

Imagine you are downloading the “Top Ten Pirated Movies” from TorrentFreak… Exodus: Gods and Kings… The Hobbit… Fifty Shades of Grey… the newest Hunger Games… and you say, “oh yeah, let me pull that crappy looking movie that is also here, Manny (2014). Maybe it will be the new Rocky.”

How upset would you be after you wasted 88 minutes of your life that you will never get back, and you realize that critics HATED the film? How much more upset would you be when you receive a subpoena notice in the mail from your ISP that you have been sued in federal court for the piracy of …not Fifty Shades of Grey… not the Hobbit or Hunger Games… but for that Manny Pacquiao film?!? How much more upset would you be when you find out that the copyright holder / corporate entity for that Manny Pacquiao film, “Manny Film LLC,” has hired Lipscomb & Eisenberg, the law firm behind ALL of the copyright troll attorneys who have been filing the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits all across the U.S.?

Then, how would you feel if you found out that the local attorneys hired by Lipscomb generally don’t play fair when discovery is requested, or when a valid defense is asserted? And when you learn that all of the Malibu Media dirty little secrets that their digital forensics are flawed (just as Manny Film LLC’s forensics are probably equally as flawed), how would you feel then when they block your attempts at discovering the truth of their operation?  Then, when you decided to make a reasonable offer to settle the claims against you, how would you feel when the plaintiff attorneys reject your reasonable offer, and instead they offer you an INCOME-BASED SETTLEMENT — a settlement NOT based on the fair market value of the movie you downloaded, but rather a settlement based on your neighborhood’s median income based on public information and property values in your zip code?

Yep, I could imagine you’d be a bit upset.

Let’s make this a bit more personal.  As of writing this article, it appears as if over 150 cases have been filed so far in four (4) states — New Jersey, Ohio, and notably, Florida and Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff attorneys in the Manny Film LLC  cases are the same attorneys that you will find for the Malibu Media lawsuits, and thus we already have an idea of what to expect from each character:

Yousef Faroniya is handling the Ohio lawsuits. He’s the one who doesn’t like speaking to people over the phone.

Keith Lipscomb himself is the attorney handling the Florida lawsuits (although I suspect he’s the kingpin behind all of the lawsuits filed in every state).

Jordan Rushie is handling the New Jersey lawsuits (I half expected him to take the PA lawsuits as well since PA is his backyard, but Lipscomb’s local counsel Chris Fiore [who successfully filed many cases against John Doe Defendants and is best known for Malibu Media’s first “win” in the PA courts under what are known as the Malibu Media Bellwether cases] already was there as a copyright troll for Keith Lipscomb). The interesting part about Jordan is that he’s a “switch-hitter.” One day, he’ll represent a defendant, and the next day, he’ll represent a copyright troll. Perhaps he likes boxing, or maybe with the dissociation of his partnership with Leo Mulvihill at the Fishtown lawyers, he’s looking to either make a name for himself, and teaming up with the largest of the copyright trolls is a way to get everyone’s attention.

What bothers me about Jordan Rushie playing plaintiff is that I suspect that he is an apprentice of Marc Randazza (I expect Marc has mentored him quite well since they started working together in 2012). Thus, anyone who knew the then-innocent Jordan Rushie from before the partnership (you know, the guy who posted on twitter comments and even made a YouTube video about his leather briefcase, and asking the Twitter world which bag looked most professional so that he can look good when he shows up in court) will likely see a very different and more seasoned Jordan Rushie with these lawsuits.

Since I mentioned Marc’s name, Marc Randazza was the plaintiff attorney for the Liberty Media Holdings, LLC (most notably, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. John Does 1-441 where he broke the mold of how far a copyright troll is willing to push a lawsuit, where while most copyright trolls only huff and bluff about naming and serving defendants, Marc didn’t even threaten to do so — he just did it. His settlements were also significantly higher than the average and included questionable stipulated settlements. Jordan Rushie in 2012 became his local counsel, and no doubt, the schooling Marc hopefully has given him will make Jordan a formidable attorney to anyone who downloaded that Manny movie.

Lastly, I don’t know if I read this correctly, but I think (UPDATE: I did, and I am very upset about this) I also saw that David Tamaroff and Daniel Tamaroff of their Tamaroff & Tamaroff Law Firm were the plaintiff attorneys for all of the Florida Middle District cases. This is not only upsetting — this is a betrayal, as David and his brother Daniel have spent so much money, time, and effort trying to build their practice on the DEFENSE side of things. Why they would ruin their reputation and start representing the copyright troll side of the lawsuits is beyond me. Don’t they realize that copyright trolling is a slippery slope, and eventually it leads to the copyright troll losing his law license?!? All I could say to them is, “Tread carefully. Trolling is a slippery slope, especially with the company of folks you’ve aligned yourselves with.”

There you go. The Manny film. Quite honestly, who cares even a little bit about the film. The people behind the Manny film obviously have crooked morals, as they have chosen Lipscomb and the Malibu Media gang to use their copyrighted film to extort money from what will be countless internet users. I wonder how many of those who will be the accused downloaders even watched the film that they downloaded, and if so, I wonder whether they recall the experience, and would they do it again if they knew what was going to happen to them next. AT LEAST when speaking to Malibu Media defendants, I sometimes get a guilty chuckle from the accused downloaders saying, “yeah, those were good videos.”

[HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) IN 2015, YOU CAN SEE THAT I SUSPECTED THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS, BUT BACK THEN, I COULDN’T PUT MY FINGER ON IT.

COMMON THREAD: GUARDALEY. GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT IT IS NOW COMING OUT THAT THEY WERE ALSO BEHIND OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S., LIKELY — EVEN THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS I WROTE ABOUT HERE.]


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 [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 boook now cta

Filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

Filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

Skip to content