Michigan (MI)

2017 Malibu Media – Which Attorneys Filed Cases and Where?

by
malibu-media-case-consolidations

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC APPEARS TO BE FOCUSING MOST OF THEIR FUNDS ON THREE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE FILING A MAJORITY OF THE LAWSUITS. THESE LAWSUITS ARE BEING FILED IN THE NEW YORK ‘TRI-STATE’ AREA (NY/NJ/CT) AND TEXAS.

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 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.]

WHICH ATTORNEYS ARE FILING MOST OF THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS?

Jacqueline M. James in NY/CT (78), Pat Cerillo in NJ (38) and Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm in TX (42).

What is the relevance of these three attorneys?

JACQUELINE JAMES (NY, CT)

Jacqueline James (“Jackie”) has been filing lawsuits for Malibu Media, LLC since 2015. She is not one of the “original” copyright trolls (Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits since 2/20/2012 [based on my first contact with them]). However, Jackie is more than willing to start fights with judges and other attorneys, and she has needed to change how she files her lawsuits and how she interacts with John Doe Defendants and even how she treats other attorneys because she has developed a reputation where the word “harassment” has been thrown around more than a few times.

2018 UPDATE: Jackie James is no longer representing Malibu Media, LLC.  While we were opponents on many cases, I did get to know her (as much as was possible).  In hindsight, she has always been tough when negotiating a settlement, but she has always been fair (to the extent any of these cases are “fair”).  The biggest change in my view of her happened when she stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC.  Malibu has many issues, and in my opinion, they suffer from a lack of a moral compass.  My view of Jackie changed for the better when I learned that she decided to no longer represent Malibu as their attorney.  That was no doubt a lot of “business” to give up, and given the circumstances, she did it in the best way possible.  After she left, Kevin Conway happily took over each of her cases, and is now Malibu Media’s NY / CT attorney.

These days, Jackie has taken on Malibu Media LLC’s “sister” as a client — Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.  The lawsuits are almost identical to Malibu’s, however, of the two companies, Strike 3 Holdings appears to be run significantly more “ethically” than the Malibu cases are.  This is not to say that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is not engaging in copyright trolling — they are — however, their “tactics” are much more friendly than what I have even heard in recent months since she has stopped representing Malibu Media LLC.

I am listing Jackie’s information here just so you can recognize her name on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.  It is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly:

Jacqueline M. James
The James Law Firm PPLC
445 Hamilton Avenue
Suite 1102
White Plains, NY 10601
Email: [email protected]

2018 UPDATE: To keep things up to date, I am also now listing Kevin Conway’s information here so that you will recognize his name on the subpoena paperwork.  Again, it is never a good idea to speak to the plaintiff attorney directly:

Kevin T. Conway, Esq.
664 Chestnut Ridge Road
Spring Valley, NY 10977
E-mail: [email protected]

ANDREW KUMAR / MICHAEL LOWENBERG (TX)

Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg are a different type of Malibu Media, LLC copyright troll attorneys. Andrew and Mike became one of Malibu Media, LLC’s local counsel at the end of 2016 (“fresh meat,” so to speak), and my best guess is that they were hired by Malibu Media directly, or by Carl Crowell who has taken over the role of managing each and every Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit across the U.S. (I say this because the entity behind Malibu Media, LLC is Guardaley [a german company], and now they are working with Carl Crowell to replace Keith Lipscomb after their relationship with Lipscomb soured in April, 2016). Andrew and Mike both are too “new” to the Malibu Media lawsuits to have gained a reputation yet, but nevertheless, our Texas federal judges have allowed them free reign to file 75+ lawsuits without much of an objection.

2018 UPDATE: It must have been a coincidence that I wrote about both Jackie James (NY) and Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (TX) in the same article.  Likely for the same reasons that Jackie James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC, I saw similar tensions arising between these two and Malibu Media, LLC as well.  Even though I called them on it and asked them what was going on behind the scenes, and although they appeared jaded by what was happening at Malibu, they denied that there was a problem.

Out of nowhere, one day I learned that they too were no longer representing Malibu Media, LLC.  In their place is Malibu Media’s new local counsel, Paul Beik.  As of updating this article, I do not yet have an opinion of Paul.  [05/2019 UPDATE: Now I do have an opinion of Paul Beik.] Beik came in as a Malibu Media, LLC local counsel for our Texas cases after the big changes happened with Malibu Media, LLC.  Paul seems to be comfortable with the new “rules” and this is not a positive for him, as Malibu Media, LLC has gotten a lot worse over the last few months.

Andrew and Mike’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize their names as it they found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP (you will usually find one name, or the other).  Again — it is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly.

Andrew Darshan Kumar
Michael J. Lowenberg
Lowenberg Law Firm
7941 Katy Fwy., #306
Houston, TX 77024
Email: [email protected]

Paul Beik’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize his name as it is found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.

Paul S. Beik
Beik Law Firm, PLLC
8100 Washington Avenue, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77007
E-mail: [email protected]

WHY ISN’T JACKIE JAMES FILING THE NEW JERSEY MALIBU MEDIA CASES?

Although Jacqueline James and Andrew Kumar / Mike Lowenberg (and now Paul Beik) each belong to a “new generation” of Malibu Media, LLC copyright infringement attorneys (“copyright trolls”), there are still a set of OLDER, MORE EXPERIENCED MALIBU MEDIA, LLC ATTORNEYS (I call them the “OLD GUARD”), some of whom stayed loyal to Malibu Media, LLC when their relationship with Lipscomb went sour. In New Jersey, Patrick Cerillo (or, “Pat Cerillo”) is one of those older attorneys who remained loyal to Malibu Media, LLC.

PATRICK CERILLO (NJ)

Patrick J. Cerillo is one of the “old guard” of attorneys who stayed loyal to Malibu Media, LLC after they split from Keith Lipscomb.  He resides in New Jersey. So as much as Jackie James would no doubt love to take over the New Jersey Malibu Media, LLC cases, for now, Pat Cerillo has a “lock” on that territory.

Patrick’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize his name as it is found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.  Again — it is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly.

PATRICK JOSEPH CERILLO
4 WALTER FORAN BLVD., SUITE 402
FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822
Email: [email protected]

Why is me being licensed in New York relevant to you?

Because these courts are in my home turf. Before moving our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC lawfirm to Houston, TX in 2010, I was (and continue to be) licensed to practice law in New York. I grew up in New York, I went to law school in New York, I know many federal judges in New York, and I understand the way the federal courts operate in that state. I have lived in both New York and New Jersey most of my life, and the “tri-state area” (NY/NJ/CT) is where I have most of my legal contacts.

Why is me being licensed in Texas relevant to you?

Because as of 2010, we moved our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice to Houston, TX. Since we opened our doors, we have practiced *ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY* in federal court practice. I took the bar exam here, I have represented possibly hundreds of clients here in Texas exclusively for bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, and again, I know the federal judges here, how their courts operate, and this is my home turf.

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

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.

SUMMARY

There is obviously more to go into, specifically about the topic of Malibu Media LLC’s “old guard” (veteran attorneys, some from 2012), and the “new guard” (new attorneys hired slightly before or after the relationship between Malibu Media and Keith Lipscomb soured.  Also, I will shortly be posting a follow-up analysis confirming the initial research that Malibu Media, LLC is on a $20,000/month budget.

For the purposes of this e-mail, Malibu Media is allocating their money to split the new cases among the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State area, and Texas.

—

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

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.

    Here is the breakdown of Malibu Media, LLC cases filed THIS YEAR, 2017! (sorted by attorney/quantity):

    Attorney Jackie James Filed Cases (28%)
    Connecticut (38 Cases)
    New York (40 Cases)

    Attorneys Andrew Kumar & Michael Lowenberg Filed Cases (16%)
    Texas (42 Cases)

    Attorney Pat Cerillo Filed Cases (14%)
    New Jersey (38 Cases)

    Attorney Joel Bernier Filed Cases (6%)
    Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

    Attorney Mary Schulz Filed Cases (4%)
    Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

    Attorney Jon Hoppe Filed Cases (3%)
    Maryland (7 Cases)

    Attorney Jordan Rushie Filed Cases (3%)
    Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

    Attorney John Decker Filed Cases (1%)
    Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

    LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY)

    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 No. 3:17-cv-00187)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00188)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00189)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00190)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00195)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00203)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00213)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00219)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00220)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00221)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00223)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00224)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00225)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00227)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00229)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00230)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00232)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00233)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00249)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00250)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00251)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00252)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00253)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00254)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00256)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00257)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00258)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00259)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00271)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00272)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00273)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00274)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00275)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00276)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00277)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00278)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00279)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 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)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
    Malibu Media, LLC 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 No. 8:17-cv-00397)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00396)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00402)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00401)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00398)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00399)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 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)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP ) Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP ) Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned 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 SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01251)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01237)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01240)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. 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 No. 2:17-cv-01079)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01078)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01084)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01077)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01083)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01076)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01081)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01080)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01075)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 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 No. 1:17-cv-00983)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00985)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00987)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00988)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00989)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00992)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00994)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00995)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01065)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01067)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01068)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01069)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01070)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01072)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01074)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01075)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01076)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01078)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01088)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01094)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01095)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01096)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01097)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01098)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01099)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01100)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01101)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01102)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:17-cv-00981)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:17-cv-00982)

    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 No. 2:17-cv-00662)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00509)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00506)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00510)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00508)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00507)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00512)
    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 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 No. 4:17-cv-00413)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00415)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00417)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00418)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00420)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00421)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00422)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00423)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00424)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00425)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00465)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00466)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00468)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00469)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00470)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00471)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00472)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00473)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00474)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00475)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00476)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00477)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00478)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00479)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00480)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00481)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00482)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00483)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00484)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00485)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00486)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00487)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00488)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00489)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00490)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00491)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00492)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00493)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00494)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00495)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00497)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 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 No. 1:17-cv-00192)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00193)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00194)

     

    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: 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.

      Book a Phone Consultation with a Cashman Law Firm Attorney

      Attorney Fees to a Winning Defendant — “It’s a Shell Game”

      by
      Rights Enforcement | RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com screenshot.

      When representing a client, in my eyes I am representing the internet users against the “bad guys.” Copyright holders who use the federal court subpoena power to unclothe the identity of the internet subscriber with the intent of extorting that internet user out of thousands of dollars (regardless of whether the internet user did the download or not) is an abuse of the federal court system.  To offset the very high cost of hiring an attorney to defend a copyright infringement claim in federal court, copyright law provides the “winner” of the lawsuit attorney fees (see, 17 U.S. Code § 505).

      That way, when an accused internet user is forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to properly defend him or herself against claims of copyright infringement (which often include appearing for multiple court hearings, allowing the household’s computers and electronic devices to be inspected by a forensics expert, being questioned under oath [or having to answer written interrogatories under oath]), *IF* at the end of the investigation (e.g., at the end of “discovery”), the claim of copyright infringement ends up being unfounded and the claim of copyright infringement against the internet user is dismissed, the law gives that internet user the right to collect from his accuser all the fees he paid to his attorney.

      Beware, however.  Just because a defendant is entitled to attorney fees does not mean that they will get them.  There are three scenarios which can stop a defendant from obtaining their fees back from a copyright holder plaintiff:

      1) The “cut and run” scenario, where a copyright holder dismisses the defendant before a judge can rule that there was no infringement, and

      2) the “limited liability company” plaintiff, where the movie company has created smaller independent “shell” companies, and they use those companies to sue defendants in copyright infringement actions (knowing that if those companies incur liability, that liability will not trickle up to the owner or to the other corporate entity), and

      3) the “underfunded shell company” scenario, where the copyright holder might not have the funds to pay the attorney fees to the defendant (for example, when the settlement funds have been siphoned off to another entity, or paid out to the copyright troll attorneys).

      SCENARIO 1: THE “CUT AND RUN” SITUATION

      In a “cut and run” situation, the accused internet user (a.k.a., the “named” John Doe Defendant) mounts a sufficient defense to demonstrate either that the plaintiff copyright holder does not have sufficient evidence to find him guilty of copyright infringement, or he is able to prove that it was not him “at the keyboard” at the time the download took place (because suing the account holder based on an ISP demonstrating that the account holder was assigned a particular IP address [which was used to participate in the downloading or copying of a copyrighted video] has been held in various jurisdictions to be insufficient to prove that it was the account holder who did the download).

      In this first scenario, the account holder “fights back,” and hires and pays an attorney to file an answer to the complaint once named and served.  That attorney shows up to the court hearings, he cooperates with the discovery requests (the attorney sits with his client as he answers questions under oath, objects to questions, speaks to the judge in the middle to clarify issues that arise, etc.), and after what ends up being hundreds of hours, the copyright holder dismisses the defendant proactively before the court can rule on a summary judgement hearing that there was never a case against the client in the first place.   I saw this over and over with the Malibu Media, LLC cases.

      SCENARIOS 2 & 3: THE “LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC)” PLAINTIFF, AND THE “UNDERFUNDED” SHELL COMPANY:

      The second scenario in which a defendant could be deprived of attorney fees is when the movie studio sets up multiple limited liability “shell” entities (as seen by the “LLC” designation behind the name), and then that “shell” entity is used to file a lawsuit, but it does not have the funds to pay an award of attorney fees should it lose the copyright infringement claim against the “named” defendant.  This could be either because the “shell” entity was not properly funded in the first place, or because the plaintiff lawyers or the owners of the entity are siphoning the settlement funds out of the entity so that it would not be able to pay attorney fees if it was ordered to do so.

      This is what bugs me about the limited liability entities which are set up and used to sue defendants — there is no accountability to the accused copyright defendant for the misuse of those entities.  Using Voltage Pictures, Inc. as an example (and by no means am I insinuating that their “shell” entities are misused or underfunded), Voltage Pictures, Inc. is a big name movie company that has sued thousands of defendants over the years.  Since our firm started in 2010, I have been seeing Voltage Pictures, Inc. as a copyright troll who has sued defendants, who has hired not-so-ethical attorneys to enforce their copyrights against bittorrent users, and I do not think one year has past where I have not seen one lawsuit or another where Voltage was behind the scenes as the copyright holder.

      Over the years, I have seen Voltage shift from suing thousands of defendants using their their own Voltage name in the lawsuits to setting up smaller “shell” entities which are then used to sue John Doe Defendants.  It is not always obvious that a company suing for copyright infringement is a Voltage copyright troll, but there are tip offs in that each time a new copyright troll “shell” entity files a lawsuit, I see the same copyright troll attorney(s) filing the identical complaint as they filed in other lawsuits, and each time, I see the same discredited German forensics company (Guardaley) listed as the “expert” in the lawsuit.  With so many hundreds of lawsuits filed — and I wasn’t sure I was going to go here, but I am — , I ask myself why the judges don’t see that these are the same set of entities filing the lawsuits, and I shake my head in disgust that the copyright troll scam is still going on.  It boggles my mind that companies as large as Voltage Pictures, Inc. are still taking part in this kind of legal militarism and butchery.

      Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was one such shell company that was set up and used to sue defendants, which I later learned was a Voltage Pictures, Inc. shell company.  More recently, Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC appears to be another such shell company.  These companies are all “limited liability companies,” which means that unless the company was structured improperly when it was formed, or unless the principals of the company did something stupid (e.g., intermingling company funds with another shell company’s funds), it is very difficult to “break the veil” to hold the owner of the company personally liable for the company’s mistakes.

      This got me thinking.  A defendant does not immediately know whether a copyright troll corporate “shell” entity is properly funded or not, and before hiring an attorney and spending tens of thousands of dollars on a defense, the first thing that defendant should do (or have his lawyer do) is have the “shell” company demonstrate that they have the funds to pay the defendant’s attorney fees should it be demonstrated a) that the account holder “named” and served as the defendant was not the one who did the download in the first place, or b) that the plaintiff’s experts cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copyright infringement actually happened.

      Why? Because if the plaintiff does not have the funds to proceed, why spend the time and money defending the lawsuit?  Rather, hit them early on with a bond request to demonstrate that 1) they have the funds to proceed, and to demonstrate 2) that they have the intent to move forward, all the way to trial (if necessary).  This is not a cheap proposition for the copyright holders, as lawsuits such as these could easily run into the hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in fees.

      Anyway, my point in this article is simply caveat emptor.  Before you go ahead throwing out all of your money paying an attorney for a defense, make sure the plaintiff can pay your fees if you win. Have them post a bond, or do something to demonstrate that they have the funds to proceed if the case goes in that direction.  If they cannot demonstrate this, then maybe there is no need to defend your case in the first place.

      In sum, the copyright laws as they are practiced is lopsided.  Copyright owners are given their remedy — the ability to sue for “statutory damages” of $150,000 per instance of infringement.  And, the accused defendant apparently has his remedy — the ability to retrieve his paid attorney fees when he successfully defends his case against the copyright holder.  Why shouldn’t an accused defendant take a few steps to preserve his rights and check to make sure the plaintiff can pay his attorney fees if he wins?

      NOW A NOTE FOR THE JUDGES:

      Accused internet users are thrown around, threatened, extorted for thousands of dollars in cash, and the law does little to protect their rights. Defendants have the remedy to have their funds returned to them if they fight and win, but what individual internet user defendant has the ability to pay for a lawyer to defend him in court?  What use is it for the law to award attorney fees and costs to a defendant who prevails “on the merits” when that defendant cannot afford to hire a lawyer to get to that point in the legal process?

      Rather, the duty to protect the public in circumstances such as these (suing internet users for the download of copyrighted materials) is on the judges themselves.

      Judges know (or their clerks can easily discover) when a particular copyright holder is a “copyright troll” and they know if the same parties have filed serial lawsuits in one state, or if they have filed multiple lawsuits in multiple states, or whether that same entity has sued defendants using multiple shell companies.  Judges also know that most accused defendants cannot pay a lawyer even for the most basic defense.

      Too often, judges do not act as the gatekeepers they are, and they let the copyright holders do whatever they want to do while the judges pretend to pressure the copyright holders to move forward and name and serve defendants, or not. This is a charade — one that unnerves me, because it is an open secret that the copyright holders have absolutely no interest in taking a case to trial.

      Judges who rubber stamp “expedited discovery” motions: WHY allow copyright holders access to the names of the accused John Doe Defendants when those copyright holders have shown through their past filings that they have absolutely NO INTENTION of proceeding to trial?  And why not make the plaintiff copyright holders demonstrate that they intend to proceed to trial (e.g., by having them post a bond as a matter of course) rather than using your federal court as a weapon to extort settlements from defendants who otherwise do not have the funds to pay for an adequate defense?

      Since I mentioned Voltage Pictures, Inc. in this article (since they are the ones behind the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits from a few months ago, and more recently, they are the ones behind the Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC lawsuits), below are a list of cases filed across the U.S. (and this is only a small sample of the lawsuits that were filed).  Judges, how can you NOT know that this “Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC” entity is a shell company practicing copyright trolling across the US?!?  Will you now let this “shell” entity do the same thing that every Voltage Pictures, Inc. “shell” entity did before them?  Ask yourself: Have ANY of these Voltage plaintiffs gone to trial?

      Current Cases Affected by this Article (I am listing these so that you see how deep the Voltage Picture lawyer network goes — cases are not only filed in Texas, but like the Malibu Media, LLC cases were, they are filed across the US):

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 4:16-cv-01968, Texas Southern District Court (July 5, 2016))
      [Plaintiff Attorney Joshua S. Wyde]

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 4:16-cv-01315, Texas Southern District Court (May 10, 2016))
      [Plaintiff Attorney Joshua S. Wyde]

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-01073, Arizona District Court (April 15, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 1:16-cv-00362, Michigan Western District Court (April 8, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10948, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 16, 2016))

      Fathers And Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02452, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-32 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02453, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02456, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

      Fathers And Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02450, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10371, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10372, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v Does 1 Through 12 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00187, Hawaii District Court (April 22, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10948, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 16, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-00406, Arizona District Court (Feb. 12, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10939, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 15, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. John Does 1-7 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01318, Colorado District Court (June 1, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10939, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 15, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10751, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 3, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-18 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10785, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 4, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10654, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 23, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10910, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 14, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00560, Colorado District Court (March 8, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00670, Colorado District Court (March 22, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10910, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 14, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00747, Colorado District Court (March 31, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 1:16-cv-00278, New Mexico District Court (April 11, 2016))

      Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10372, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

      Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00613, Colorado District Court (March 16, 2016))

      Need more examples?

      —
      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

        Dallas Buyers Club rivals adult film bittorrent lawsuits in quantity of lawsuits.

        by

        Dallas Buyers Club filings have reached a quantity of lawsuits — so much so that they rival the hundreds of adult film lawsuits that flood the federal courts.

        As a quick recap, the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC piracy lawsuits started in Texas and Ohio, and like a cancer, over the past year they have metastasized into the federal courts of Illinois, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and even Hawaii.  Copyright lawyers employed by Dallas Buyers Club have even moved their copyright enforcement activities offshore into Canada, Australia, Finland, Denmark, and Japan.

        Regardless of where they go, their business model is the same — Voltage Pictures, LLC or Dallas Buyers Club, LLC files a peer-to-peer lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against multiple John Doe Defendants (generally referred to by plaintiffs as “pirates”), they convince a federal judge to rubber-stamp a subpoena demanding that the ISP turn over the contact information of the accused account holders unless the accused account holders file what is known as a “motion to quash.”  The target of the subpoena is almost always the account holder, implying that the account holder is the actual downloader or infringer who downloaded the Dallas Buyers Club (2013) movie.  The plaintiff attorney then sends one or multiple settlement demand letters to the accused downloaders in each case threatening that each will be “named and served” as a defendant in the lawsuit unless they pay a settlement of thousands of dollars (settlement requests average $3,500 to $6,500 [and in one case, $14,000, really?] depending on the state in which the lawsuit is filed).

        Where the settlement demand letters blur the line of ethics is that many plaintiff attorneys employ scare tactics, making the John Doe Defendant believe that the lawsuit has already been filed against them personally.  Various attorneys have sent accused downloaders “waiver of service” forms and questionnaires along with their settlement demand letters suggesting that the not-yet-named-defendants answer these questions voluntarily, or that they waive service effectively negating the need for the plaintiff attorney to name and serve them as a defendant.

        What bothers me is that because Dallas Buyers Club is not an “adult film” copyright infringement lawsuit (but rather, a “real” movie with a valid copyright and without the stigma of being an adult film), the federal judges are giving them leeway to move in and out of the federal courts to “enforce” their copyrights.  In U.S. copyright law, there is a legal presumption of validity, which means that a judge will initially lean towards favoring the copyright owner until that copyright owner has been shown to be abusing the legal process through a pattern of abuse.  Attorneys for copyright holders who represent the plaintiff generally (in our blog and in the eyes of the courts) get increased scrutiny because they have represented other copyright holders in similar lawsuits employing the same strategy of “sue and settle, but try not to name and serve [and if you do, bluff to the judge that you are prepared to go to trial on the merits of the case].”

        These lawyers who file Dallas Buyers Club lawsuits (these are those who sue defendants, NOT those who defend defendants) include a growing list of attorneys, such as: Keith Vogt (Texas), Michael Hierl (Illinois), David Stephenson Jr. (Colorado), Eric Osterberg (Connecticut), Richard Fee (Florida), Paul Nicoletti (Michigan), Carl Crowell (Oregon), Leon Bass (Ohio), and Gregory Ferren (Hawaii).

        Many of these names are familiar to those who have followed our “copyright troll” / bittorrent lawsuit blogs over the years, and we often see these names representing one copyright holder after another in the same fashion.  Regardless of who the lawyer is, be aware of the motivation of the Dallas Buyers Club lawsuits — to create a ‘windfall’ profit for the company by pursuing those who download the movie without authorization, and to scare and intimidate the accused downloaders into paying large settlement amounts to avoid defending the claims against them in court.

        Related: Dallas Buyers Club launches post-Oscar copyright salvo, sues 615 Does (ArsTechnica)

        —
        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 targets the wealthy in their geolocation tracking.

          by
          malibu-media-case-consolidations

          Is Malibu Media, LLC using geolocation tracking to target the wealthy in their settlement scheme?

          In one word, yes.  Malibu Media is using geolocation tracking services to identify which neighborhoods are considered “wealthy.”  They take this geolocation tracking data and they use it to decide which defendants to sue.

          Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits across the U.S. with a fervor with one change — most of them appear to be “Single John Doe” lawsuits against defendants whom they believe have deep pockets.

          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 is looking for… Deep Pockets?!?

          Yes, Malibu Media, LLC appears to be suing those defendants with deep pockets.  How?

          It appears that Malibu is using geolocation tracking services to at the geolocation data of the various IP addresses of the so-called downloaders.  They then focus their lawsuits to target defendants who live in towns which have high value residential homes. I know this because based on the individuals who call our office, a disproportionate number of them have commented that they have multi-million dollar estates, and they were wondering whether it was ethical to target high value individuals in their copyright infringement lawsuits.

          Malibu Media Incentives to Local Counsel??

          To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC appears to have incentivized their local counsel with financial rewards for bringing in higher settlements. In the olden days, I could have called one of their contacts directly, and within a few phone calls, I knew what kind of settlement a defendant could get based on how many “titles” or alleged instances of infringement they were accused of downloading. From there, the client and I would decide whether it made more financial sense to fight the case by waiting to be named and filing an answer in court, or whether it made more financial sense to settle the case. Malibu has complicated this process in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy for the courts. Now, they are having their local counsel negotiate the settlements themselves. This would be okay, but it is my experience that local counsel are asking for higher numbers than I know Malibu would have settled for just a few months ago. “The old settlement numbers you used to have with Malibu are no longer in effect,” one local counsel told me as she pushed for higher numbers. “We are doing this ourselves now.”

          And now Malibu Media is tracking their targets’ other downloads?

          To make matters worse, when Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader by his IP address, they track that IP address and monitor that defendant to see what other bittorrent files that defendant is downloading (wiretap?). They continue to monitor that defendant downloading non-Malibu Media titles such as “The Walking Dead,” “Homeland,” “Breaking Bad,” often creating a list multiple pages long of “other” infringing activities that defendant has taken part in. Their logic is that because a particular defendant downloaded those other titles, he is a “serial downloader” and thus it is more likely that he downloaded their titles as well. A number of us attorneys have explained to their local counsels’ deaf ears that just because a particular IP address downloaded a number of bittorrent titles does not mean that the accused defendant is that downloader. However, even the best attorney’s understanding of the law can be clouded when money influences that attorney’s understanding of it.

          Good news, the “other downloads” are inadmissible character evidence.

          On a positive note, in just a few weeks, we have seen judges rule that the “other” BitTorrent activity listed in their complaints [for works not owned by Malibu Media] is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), specifically Rule 404 on “Character Evidence.” The reason for this is because “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” In other words, proving that a particular defendant is a “serial downloader” is not admissible to prove that on a particular date and time, that defendant downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles. Shame on Malibu attorneys for not knowing this.

          Further, judges have ruled that introducing evidence of “other” downloads is not relevant and is actually prejudicial to the defendant, and thus that so-called evidence is not admissible to prove that the defendant downloaded Malibu Media, LLC’s titles. As one example, Judge Stephen Crocker has frozen all of Malibu Media, LLC’s cases in the Western District of Wisconsin for this very purpose (link).

          In summary, these aggressive missteps will hurt Malibu cases.

          In sum, messing up on the Federal Rules of Evidence and doing so on each of their “Single Doe” upper-class cases was a big mistake which they might not be able to undo.  And also on a positive note, because they have filed so many “Single Doe” cases across the country, judges across the U.S. are looking deeper into their tactics and their evidence of infringement.  See @Ddragon229’s article on the FCT website, “Winds of change begin to blow on Malibu Media” for details on the character evidence issue.

          Despite this, Malibu Media, LLC continues to file lawsuits across the U.S. in alarming numbers, and in each case, they continue to file this prejudicial information of “other” downloads as their “Exhibit C” in each case. A snippet of cases filed in just the last few weeks is pasted below:

          Cases filed by Chris Fiore in the Pennsylvania Eastern District:
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02858)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02859)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02867)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02868)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02854-JP)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02855-MMB)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02856-JD)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02857-SD)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No.2:13-cv-02863-PD)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02864-HB)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02765-MSG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02766-MSG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02767-WY)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02768-PD
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02769-RB)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02770-CMR)

          Cases filed by Mary Schulz of Schulz Law PC in the Illinois Northern District:
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03726)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03699)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03700)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03703)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03704)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03705)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03706)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03707)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03710)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03711)

          Cased filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC inn the Michigan Eastern District:
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.238.205.92 (Case No. 4:13-cv-12231-MAG-MAR)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.185.159 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12210-RHC-MJH)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.4.96 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12213-SFC-DRG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.84.236 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12214-AJT-MKM)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.60.140.87 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12216-PDB-RSW)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.62.41.133 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.14.181.108 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12218-NGE-DRG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.246.89.172 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12220-AJT-DRG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.158.6 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12197-GAD-PJK)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.89.224 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12198-PDB-MKM)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.123.7 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12200-GER-MKM)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.46.12 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12201-DPH-DRG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.35.2 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12202-PDB-DRG)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.170.197 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12204-GAD-RSW)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.19.221 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12206-DPH-LJM)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.86.4 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12208-MOB-RSW)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.172.154 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12209-SJM-MKM)

          Cases filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC in the Indiana Northern District:
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 12 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00166-PPS-RBC)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 5 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00164-PPS-RBC)
          Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC)

          PERSONAL NOTE: Even with all these cases, I have only listed 46 cases having 46 defendants. With the hundreds of filings, it becomes impossible to track and report on each case. The more I look at each of these cases, the more I feel as if they have succeeded in preventing attorneys like myself from tracking and reporting on each of their hundreds of cases. Obviously I am still here, and I am still reporting on these cases. My list of cases to track has just gotten a bit larger.

          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 boook now cta

            UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC “SINGLE DOE” CASES FILED

            by
            malibu-media-case-consolidations

            SINGLE DEFENDANT MALIBU MEDIA CASES?!?

            Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.

             [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 ‘SITERIPS’

            To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Siterip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.

            MALIBU MEDIA ASKING FOR UNUSUALLY HIGH SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS

            Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.

            MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS SUE ONLY ONE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT

            While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.

            WHO ARE MALIBU MEDIA’S ATTORNEYS IN EACH STATE?

            Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.

            MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES

            Illinois Central District Court
            Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)

            Wisconsin Eastern District Court
            Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)

            Indiana Northern District Court
            Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
            Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)

            District Of Columbia District Court
            Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)

            FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES

            New Jersey District Court
            Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)

            Wisconsin Eastern District Court
            Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)

            California Southern District Court
            Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)

            Florida Middle District Court
            M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)

            Florida Southern District Court
            M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)

            Colorado District Court
            Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)

            Maryland District Court
            Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)

            Illinois Central District Court
            Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)

            Illinois Northern District Court
            Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)

            Michigan Western District Court
            Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)

            Indiana Southern District Court
            Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)

            Indiana Northern District Court
            Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071)
            Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)

            Colorado District Court
            Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317)
            Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)

            P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.

            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: 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.

              Book a Phone Consultation with a Cashman Law Firm Attorney