New York ME2 Productions Settlement Letters Sent by Bryan DeMatteo

New York Bittorrent Cases with Bryan DeMatteo | ME2 NY, UN4 NY, Venice PI NY, Headhunter NY

Bryan N DeMatteo is the New York attorney sending settlement demand letters to accused John Doe Defendants in the New York ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent lawsuits (a.k.a. the New York Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits).  These settlement letters from the ME2 Production attorney are asking for a settlement of $5,600, which in my opinion is absurd.

As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, I am competent to speak about Bryan DeMatteo’s lawsuits because I was representing bittorrent clients in 2012 when the case law was first paved.

Let me be clear about this.  I am competent to speak about the New York lawsuits because I have been licensed as a New York Attorney for the last 10 years.  I also have history here, because I was representing clients in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits of 2012 when all of the good case law was created.

This good case law slowly destroyed every time an innocent defendant listens to a “settlement factory” attorney (usually out-of-state) who convinces them to settle, even though they didn’t do it.  Every voluntary dismissal on paper from an innocent defendant who settled gives Bryan DeMatteo’s cases credibility in the eyes of the judges because it makes judges believe that he has correctly sued the “right” defendant.

SIDE NOTE:  I am aware that some attorney has called me a “Western out of state defense attorney,” but don’t be fooled — I am born and raised in New York, and New York was the first state in which I first became a licensed attorney.  New York is known to be one of the hardest state bars to pass.  Let me speak clearly just so there is no confusion — I AM AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TEN YEARS LATER, STILL IN GOOD STANDING — I am not some out of state defense attorney who is looking to get admitted (“pro hac”) to the US District Court one case at a time.  And, just so it is said, I have nothing wrong with out-of-state attorneys who get admitted “pro hac” on a case-by-case basis to represent one client for one case, as long as they represent their clients COMPETENTLY.

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

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASE RESOURCES

The TorrentLawyer blog has become a giant with over 200+ articles on the various cases in which our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has worked on.  If you have come to this page, you likely received a settlement demand letter from Bryan N. DeMatteo asking for $5,600 (or, whatever he is asking for at the moment; some attorneys are asking for $7,500, and others are asking for $2,500).  Either way, you missed the deadline to file a motion to quash (which is fine), and your ISP handed over your information to the plaintiff attorney.  Now you are facing another deadline — DeMatteo’s deadline — which is probably some date coming immediately, as in tomorrow.

You want to know your options, and *this article* is more of an advanced article describing a historical view of the case law which has been achieved in the New York Southern and Eastern District Courts (in 2012), versus the 2017 cases in which Bryan DeMatteo is seeking to “undo” the achievements we have achieved in the fight against copyright trolling, and why things at the moment are in his favor based on the circumstances.

To learn about the New York ME2 Productions lawsuits, read these cases in this order:

  1. “Just The Facts” — a short to-the-point article about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases and what you can do about them,
  2. “An In-Depth FAQ about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases” to understand everything you need to know about who is suing you,
  3. The article about your plaintiff attorney, Bryan N DeMatteo (read it to learn about the plaintiff, not the history of the second circuit), and
  4. The timeline of Anonymity in these bittorrent lawsuits — as a John Doe, you are still anonymous from the court (even though Bryan DeMatteo is sending you settlement demand letters).

Then, if you need to speak to me or have questions:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

How is Bryan N DeMatteo trying to legitimize his ME2 Productions (Mechanic: Resurrection movie) cases?

Earlier this morning, I wrote that “Bryan DeMatteo is facing an uphill battle to legitimize his “movie” bittorrent cases.”  In order to clarify what he is doing, please allow me to elaborate.  Bryan N DeMatteo is seeking to undo some of the progress we made in 2012 in the Digital Sin, Inc. cases.  Digital Sin, Inc. was a bittorrent-based copyright infringement set of lawsuits against internet users who went onto bittorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay and KickAssTorrents (“KAT”) to download adult films.  Because Bryan N DeMatteo’s cases deal with “movies” rather than “adult films,” it appears to me as if he is seeking to separate out movie companies (as legitimate) from the adult film companies (as illegitimate) who sued hundreds of downloaders for EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

2012 Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo and his 2017 New York ME2 Productions cases

The difference between the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases and the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases is that most defendants did NOT settle.

The difference between the Digital Sin, Inc. and other adult film lawsuits that plagued the federal courts in 2012 and the 2017 “movie” lawsuits is that back then, most defendants did NOT pay settlements.  They either fought their cases, or they hired an attorney such as myself in what I referred to as an “ignore” route representation, where I would open up the line of communication between my client and the “copyright troll” attorney to convince that attorney that my client wasn’t the one who did the download (and thus would not be settling).

With hundreds of potential defendants in one lawsuit (e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-240), this made it appear as if almost nobody was settling the claims against them.  New York judges viewed these cases with suspicion, and correctly diagnosed them with the inherent faults and flaws that even today’s bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases suffer from.  Namely, improper joinder, insufficient evidence to prove copyright infringement, etc.

However, in the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, a high percentage of defendants ARE settling the claims against them (even if they did not do the download).

Today the cases no longer have 200+ defendants in each case (and in 2012, this was considered “small” because there were cases across the US that had 2,000+ John Doe Defendants filed in ONE lawsuit).  Today, cases average between 1-20 “John Doe” defendants.  Bryan N. DeMatteo lists the various defendants by their accused IP address, even though I remember seeing case law stating that “an IP address is not a person.

So, as far as I am concerned, Bryan DeMatteo is calling the ME2 Productions, Inc. John Doe Defendants by another name, but don’t be deceived, they are still John Doe Defendants and have the same legal status as an unnamed defendant with a “John Doe” placeholder.

New York ME2 Productions settlement demand letters sent by Bryan DeMatteo
JESHOOTS / Pixabay

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

The Consequence of More Defendants Settling Cases is Legitimacy Given to Movie Download Lawsuits, UNDOING our work in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases.

The CONSEQUENCE of today’s smaller cases combined with the fact that plaintiff attorneys are happy to name and serve defendants is that the number of accused defendants who settle are higher (likely because “settlement factory” attorneys push defendants into settling when they should not settle).

As a result, instead of having a small handful of defendants who settle in a large case with hundreds of defendants, the HIGHER PERCENTAGE of defendants settling the claims against them (just to avoid being dragged though discovery) makes it look to the federal judge like the plaintiff’s movie cases are valid when in fact they suffer from EXACTLY THE SAME DEFECTS as the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases suffered from.

In Summary, Bryan DeMatteo’s bittorrent lawsuits *will* succeed if there is a PERCEPTION by the court that he is succeeding.

In sum, the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. downloaders used bittorrent to download the adult films.  Similarly, the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. accused downloaders used Popcorn Time software or Showbox software [which uses bittorrent to stream the copyrighted movies to the viewers, often unbeknownst to the downloader].  Either way you look at it, the lawsuits from 2012 and 2017 are identical and should be subject to the same restrictions and new case law achieved in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits.

However, if there is a PERCEPTION by the New York Judges that a high percentage of defendants are settling the claims against them, then this will make them believe that Bryan DeMatteo has done something different from the previous defendants.  Namely, a higher settlement rate suggests that the DeMatteo has sued the right defendants.  This is an unacceptable outcome, but one which I believe we are looking at for the time being given the circumstances of bittorrent lawsuits in their current form.

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

Who are the New York Southern & Eastern District Judges Presiding Over the ME2 Productions, Inc. Lawsuits?

The New York District Judges presiding over the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits include Judge Brian Cogan, Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Judge Denise Cote, Judge Edgardo Ramos, Judge Frederic Block, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, Judge Louis Stanton, Judge Margo Brodie, and Judge Paul Gardephe.  If you search for most of their names (with the exception of Judge Ramos, who oversaw the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits for my clients in 2012 — Jason Kotzker was the NY “copyright troll” attorney at the time, for those of you who have followed the blog over the years), almost NONE of the names will show up as having anything to do with the bittorrent cases.

In short, so far, DeMatteo has gotten lucky (except for NYSD Judge Ramos re: Case No. 1:17-cv-02284, which I expect to be dismissed immediately after Bryan DeMatteo reads this article [you’re welcome]), as none of the federal judges were involved in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. case consolidations.  However, the results from the Digital Sin, Inc. case is “law” (or more accurately, “case law”), which is BINDING on even these federal judges when they adjudicate the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits.

CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

  • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
  • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
  • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

    SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


    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.

    New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

    NY Copyright Troll Bryan DeMatteo and His Split Court.

    New York Bittorrent Cases with Bryan DeMatteo | ME2 NY, UN4 NY, Venice PI NY, Headhunter NY

    Bryan DeMatteo is the attorney suing John Doe Defendants in the 2017 bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York.  These New York bittorrent lawsuits involve “copyright trolls” such as ME2 Productions, Inc. (NY) (a.k.a. the Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits), UN4 Productions, Inc. (NY) (the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits), Venice PI, LLC (NY) (the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits), and more recently, Headhunter LLC (NY) (the “A Family Man” movie lawsuits).

    As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, My Thoughts on Bryan DeMatteo and His Lawsuits.

    Bryan DeMatteo runs DeMatteo Law, PLLC from the 5th Floor of 830 3rd Avenue in New York City (Midtown).  I have dealt with him before, and he is anything but an “empty shell” attorney that I poke fun at on this blog.  It was suggested that his cases are “just like any other bittorrent case” which is true as far as who his clients are, but Bryan fights his case differently from other plaintiff attorneys I have faced before.  In short, be careful when hiring counsel to oppose this attorney, because he separates apart his lawsuits into different kinds of copyright infringement, and any “settlement factory” attorney will be caught off guard by this.

    I became an attorney over ten years ago in New York, and I have been practicing law and representing New York clients for ten years.

    While our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC was formed in Texas in 2010, our law firm continues to represent New York clients.  [Why?  Because New York is where I was born, and where I grew up playing stickball on the streets of Brooklyn.  It is where I went to law school, and where I have all my roots as a New York licensed attorney.]

    Bryan DeMatteo and the New York “Movie” Bittorrent Lawsuits

    For the recent “movie” cases, Carl Crowell has an attorney who I have dealt with before — Bryan DeMatteo.

    Bryan DeMatteo (also a patent attorney) is now suing defendants in the US District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.  Bryan DeMatteo is suing for the same four copyright holders I have discussed before in other articles:

    Bryan DeMatteo Cases - A Family Man, Headhunter LLC | Mechanic: Resurrection ME2 Productions | Once Upon a Time in Venice, Venice PI | Boyka: Undisputed 4, UN4 Productions

    What do I need to know about New York Attorney Bryan DeMatteo?

    In representing a New York client, there are a few things to understand about Bryan N. DeMatteo of DeMatteo Law, PLLC:

    1) Be sure to understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology.  He does.

    Bryan DeMatteo believes in the validity of these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, which separates him from what I refer to as the “empty shell” local counsel plaintiff attorneys who I have seen read scripts provided to them by their copyright holder clients. In speaking to him (obviously it is best to have an attorney speak to him on your behalf), be sure you understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology, because he does. Show your incompetence, and he’ll likely plow right over your ignorance.

    2) Bryan DeMatteo is on a mission to rectify a split in the NY Southern District Court.

    Second. Bryan DeMatteo is faced with a SPLIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT which he is fighting an uphill battle to rectify.

    This split happened in 2012, when our law firm (Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) was representing clients against Mike Meier (the plaintiff attorney at the time) in the Digital Sin[s] v. John Does 1-234 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08170) case.  This case [into which all other NY bittorrent cases were combined] caused the controversy Bryan DeMatteo is looking to rectify.

    Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo
    Remember the Digital Sin, Inc. (NY) cases from 2012?

    While the details of the split are not relevant, in 2012, many things happened.

    1) We were successful in having the judges consolidate and freeze all of the smaller bittorrent cases in New York into one case.

    See:
    2012 Article #1, “New York Judge consolidates and freezes SMALLER BITTORRENT CASES for plaintiff attorney.
    2012 Article #2, “More of Mike Meier NY bittorrent cases consolidated.
    2012 Article #3, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? New York’s split Southern District Court

    2) Because the New York bittorrent cases were facing joinder problems (which the judges recognized as a valid problem in most of the New York bittorrent cases at the time), the John Doe Defendants in the New York bittorrent cases were severed and dismissed.

    However, as a response to the dismissal, the plaintiff attorney would turn around and sue those same defendants as new John Doe Defendants in a second bittorrent case.  This angered the judges.

    “Lest plaintiff’s counsel think he can simply put cases against the severed and dismissed John Doe defendants into the wheel for assignment to yet another judge, I remind him of Local Civil Rule 1.6(a) [which requires the plaintiff attorney to bring the existence of potentially related cases to the attention of the Court].”

    In sum, we were successful in forcing the plaintiff attorney to disclose whether these John Does were sued before, and in which cases they were sued.

    3) Judges suggested that the New York plaintiff attorney pay 244 filing fees for 244 defendants x $350 each, rather than allowing him to pay one $350 fee [the fee in 2012 to file a lawsuit] to sue them all.

    “They are dismissed because the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee that is statutorily required to bring these 244 separate lawsuits.” (p.4)

    This would have amounted to $85,400 in filing fees if Digital Sin, Inc. wanted to go after the dismissed defendants from this case.

    Needless to say, every one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients in the case were dismissed, and they were never filed against again. Since then, the three-year statute of limitations has run, and the plaintiff has lost the opportunity to sue my clients. Congratulations once again on hard earned, good results.

    Jump to 2017, Effects of 2012 on Bryan DeMatteo's NY Bittorrent Cases
    geralt / Pixabay

    Since 2012, FIVE YEARS have passed, and now we have Bryan DeMatteo to contend with.

    To bring you up to speed, it has been five (5) years since the Southern District of New York fiasco happened. While the rulings happened to Mike Meier and his Digital Sin, Inc. client, the “law” created by these cases is still binding on Bryan DeMatteo, and his New York ME2 Productions, Inc., New York UN4 Productions, Inc., New York Venice PI, LLC and New York Headhunter LLC lawsuits. He knows this, and thus his job in proving the validity of his cases is a complicated job.

    In Sum: Unintended Consequences from 2012 => Bryan DeMatteo.

    Unfortunately, as exciting as was was when our New York Southern District Court went “belly-up” for copyright trolls, the unintended consequence of our activities from five years ago is that now we have Bryan DeMatteo who has taken on these cases with “something to prove.”

    In sum, New York bittorrent lawsuits are not a place for the weak minded, nor are they a place for someone not intricately familiar with the innuendos of copyright infringement. For cases against Bryan DeMatteo, it is best to have someone who knows the New York courts, who knows many of the New York federal judges, and who has had experience in fighting bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in New York. Obviously I am one of them, and I have been fighting these cases since they were first filed in 2010.

    I want to point out that as a result of this case (and other events that surrounded this case), Mike Meier is no longer filing bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York, and until recently (as Sophisticated Jane Doe properly put it), “Trolls are not welcome in the Southern District of New York anymore.

    CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

    CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

    SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

    • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
    • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
    • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

      SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


      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.

      Bryan DeMatteo New York Southern & Eastern District Cases:

      New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

      New York Headhunter LLC Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

      New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314)
      New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155)
      New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-72.80.132.46 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05895)

      New York UN4 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-108.29.50.167 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03698)
      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)
      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.89.251.15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04400)
      New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.88.64.129 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04887)

      New York Venice PI Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY):

      New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.187.92.79 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04904)
      New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
      New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-66.108.113.178 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05594)
      New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)

      Are the UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas Targeting Ethnic Groups?

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit

      UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas sent

      I don’t take pleasure in writing this, but there is a new copyright troll on the block named UN4 Productions, Inc. (a Millennium Films company). For the past two weeks, UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas have been going out to internet users informing them that they have been implicated as being a John Doe defendant in the UN4 Productions lawsuit (a.k.a. the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit). Each lawsuit claims copyright infringement damages of $150,000 for the illegal download or streaming of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie using bittorrent, or some other streaming device.

      The name Boyka generally means “One Who Terrifies in Battle,” fitting for a gory fighting movie. Boyka: Undisputed 4 focuses on the story of Yuri Boyka, a mixed martial arts fighter.

      Boyka: Undisputed 4 Video Trailer (click here)

      Why the Boyka: Undisputed 4 ISP subpoenas mirror what we have seen

      As soon as I looked into this new copyright troll, I realized that this is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” copyright troll. The UN4 Productions ISP subpoena that you just received in the mail is coming from the same copyright enforcement entity (think Carl Crowell, or rightsenforcement.com) who just finished sending you bittorrent lawsuits for the ME2 Productions movie lawsuits, the Cook Productionsmovie lawsuits, the I.T. Productions movie lawsuits, LHF Productions movie lawsuits (think, London Has Fallen), and so many others.

      Are the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits targeting a particular ethnic group??

      The difference here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that this pirated movie has been dressed up as an ethnic movie (the previews I saw had arabic subtitles). Think, ME2 Productions, Inc. with no shirt, ripped bloody muscles, adrenaline-pumping punches all in line with the three previous Undisputed 4 movies [Undisputed (2002), Undisputed II: Last Man Standing (2006), and Undisputed III: Redemption (2010]).

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit
      antfrank / Pixabay

      “tracking an ethnic-based movie based on a specific nationality”

      Again, just in case you did not get my innuendo. The twisted offense here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that the  UN4 Productions copyright trolls have developed a new way of catching people — by tracking an ethnic-based pirated movie based on a specific nationality.  They spread a fishnet, monitor the downloads, and vwallah!  They catch bittorrent downloaders with ethnic names. When that defendant claims “it isn’t me who did the download!” the plaintiff attorney just chuckles at Youssef, Oleksiy, Omar, or whichever ethnic name just happened to be the same ethnic group or nationality for whom the movie was made.

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit

      How you can understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases

      First of all, at some point this evening, I will be writing a FAQ page so that you can understand what is going on with your Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit.  I will be posting that link here.

      To keep things simple, when you think of the UN4 Productions ISP subpoena you just received, or when you think about the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit, just think to yourself, “this is ME2 Productions in disguise. Same rules apply.” With the UN4 Productions lawsuit, the plaintiff attorney lawyers are exactly the same lawyers as with the ME2 Productions, Cook Productions, LHF Productions lawsuits we’ve been seeing for months now.

      Thus, you must come to the logical conclusion that the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit is simply another Carl Crowell (RightsEnforcement.com) common troll lawsuit with the same attorney characters we have seen before. We can infer that behind the scenes, the common troll entity (with MPAA’s blessing) approached the real production company of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie, and offered to license the rights to monetize the copyright rights on behalf of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 copyright holder (this means, sue defendants, extort multi-thousand dollar settlements from each John Doe Defendant, name some, dismiss some).

      How we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases.

      In sum, because we know the copyright enforcement entity behind the scenes of this lawsuit (think, APMC, or Anti-Piracy Management Company), and because we know the proclivities of the plaintiff attorneys (who names and serves, who settles, etc.) coupled with the federal judges who are assigned the various cases in each federal district court, we can predict with some relative certainty what will happen in each case.

      Whether that means filing a motion to quash an ISP subpoena, whether that means we will recommend that we defend your case, or whether we settle the claims against you or simply convince the plaintiff attorneys that it was not you who did the download (no settlement representation), there are a number of options we could take to represent our clients in these cases.

      Here are the cases:

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel]
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01419, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477, Case No. 1:17-cv-01577, Case No. 1:17-cv-01253, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoena ordered in the Hawaii District Court
      … v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00282)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court
      UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-22 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04865)
      … v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04868)
      … v. DOES 1-21 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04866)
      … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04863)
      … v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04861)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00473, Case No. 1:17-cv-00257, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228, Case No. 1:17-cv-02037, Case No. 1:17-cv-02070, Case No. 1:17-cv-01710)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
      … v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
      … v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00278, Case No. 5:17-cv-00286, Case No. 5:17-cv-00317, Case No. 5:17-cv-00232, Case No. 7:17-cv-00109)
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. John Doe 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00238)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Middle District Court
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00502)
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00528)
      … v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)
      … v. DOE 1, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00453)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Western District Court
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00295, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, Case No. 3:17-cv-00315, Case No. 3:17-cv-00329, Case No. 3:17-cv-00282, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-01190)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-01185)
      … v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00388)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00492)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
      … v. Doe-76.27.210.76 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00721)
      … v. Doe-71.238.54.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00722)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-9 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02481)
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-15 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02768)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01788)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik]
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00892, Case No. 2:17-cv-00786, Case No. 2:17-cv-00785)

      Which Lipscomb attorneys stayed with Malibu Media, LLC?

      malibu-media-case-consolidations

      RECAP: 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. BUT, LAWSUITS FOR SOME NOTICEABLE “TERRITORIES” ARE STILL FILED BY OLDER MALIBU ATTORNEYS.  I CALL THESE ATTORNEYS MEMBERS OF THE ‘OLD GUARD’.

      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.

      WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ‘OLD GUARD’ ATTORNEYS LOYAL TO MALIBU MEDIA?

      There are a few attorneys who stayed loyal to Malibu Media, LLC after they split from Keith Lipscomb. Jackie James, by the way, is one of them, and this is one of the reason she is likely being rewarded by Malibu Media giving her the ability to file over 300+ lawsuits, each lawsuit possibly pulling in $10,000-$25,000 in settlement dollars (of which she likely receives a ‘contingency fee’ in the form of commissions from each settlement). I estimate that in the past year, Jackie has made Malibu Media, LLC $4.5 Million Dollars in settlements, which means that she has likely grossed over $1 Million Dollars in commissions taken from the life savings hard-working New York (and now Connecticut) families in just ONE YEAR alone.

      However, as horrible as that is for New York families who have paid settlement amounts to her, Jackie is a superstar for the Malibu Media brand.  Malibu Media has most recently allowed her to expand her territory to include all lawsuits in Connecticut, and to date, she has filed 38 cases in ONE MONTH alone.

      As much as she apparently has the favor from the Malibu Media, LLC / X-Art copyright holders, there appears to be one state in her corner of the “tri-state” that Jackie has not been able to infiltrate — NEW JERSEY, and I think I know why.

      PATRICK CERILLO (NJ)

      In New Jersey resides Patrick Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”), one of the “old guard” of attorneys who were with Malibu Media, LLC since they started filing lawsuits.  Pat has his law firm in New Jersey, and to date, he alone has personally filed 14% of all Malibu Media, LLC cases in 2017 (this amounts to 38 cases against John Doe Defendants). So as much as superstar Jackie would no doubt love to take over that lucrative territory, for now, she’s probably locked out of that territory.

      Pat’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.  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]

      JON HOPPE (MD)

      There is one other name of someone I consider to be one of the upper ranks of the Malibu Media LLC “old guard,” and that is Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”).

      Jon and I first spoke in March, 2012 when someone (possibly Jon, but my best guess with hindsight, Keith Lipscomb) filed an initial set of Malibu Media, LLC cases using his PACER account. It was this conversation that tipped me off that Lipscomb was likely filing the lawsuits using the PACER accounts of the various local attorneys, because when I first spoke to Jon and sent over a letter of representation for an early Malibu Media, LLC client, he did not even know that he filed my client’s case.

      Jon Hoppe has since become one of the upper ranks of the Malibu Media attorneys.

      At one point, I understood [from speaking to newer attorneys] that Jon Hoppe was the one “in charge” and “with authority to negotiate settlements for Malibu Media,” even though he had no connection to the lawsuits that were filed by other attorneys in the other states’ federal courts. In sum, Jon Hoppe still maintains control over the Maryland lawsuits, and to date, he has filed only seven (7) lawsuits.  This would be a big deal if there were more lawsuits (Jon only filed a mere 3% of all Malibu Media cases filed in 2017), especially since Maryland is so close to Washington, DC where he has his law office.

      Jon Hoppe’s information can be found below:

      Jon Alexander Hoppe
      Law Offices of Jon A. Hoppe, Esquire
      1050 Seventeenth Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Email: [email protected]

      It would not do justice to end the article here, but that is exactly what I am doing because I have made my point.

      SUMMARY

      In sum, there are new attorneys who have only recently started filing lawsuits in 2016 and regardless of the high quantity of settlements they ‘extort’ from John Doe Defendants in the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, older, more seasoned attorneys who were with Malibu Media, LLC since the beginning (in 2012) still keep their ‘territories’, even if they are not filing as many cases.

      Thus, with the Malibu Media, LLC copyright holder, there appears to be an “old guard” and a “new guard” when it comes to ‘into which federal district courts a rising star can file John Doe lawsuits,’ and if there is a member of the “old guard” in place, the “new guard” may not enter his territory.


      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 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.

        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 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)


        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.

          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.

          Confirmed: Malibu Media invests $400 filing fees @$20K/month

          malibu-media-case-consolidations

          Malibu Media is spending $20K EACH MONTH on filing fees.

          Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) would not continue filing lawsuits (and paying a filing fee of $400 per lawsuit) unless the settlement numbers were staggeringly higher to justify that upfront outlay of cash. In the last three months alone, I viewed at least 204 cases filed which @$400/case, cost Malibu Media, LLC at least $81,600 in filing fees alone.

          This $81,600 number itself is a bit interesting to me because in December, I wrote an article expressing my suspicions that “MALIBU MEDIA, LLC APPEARS TO BE ON A $20,000/MONTH FILING BUDGET.” In that article, I estimated that every 90 days, Malibu Media, LLC files roughly 100 new lawsuits, “like the breath of a dragon, or in in the spirit of their name, like the ebb and flow of the waves that crash across the Malibu shores.”

          Since the last set of Malibu Media filings were in October 2016 and we have seen NO FILINGS from Malibu in the recent months of November, December, and January (90 days of SILENCE), it only makes sense that in February of 2017, we had a whole slew of lawsuits that flooded the courts.

          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.

          How did I estimate Malibu Media would spend $20,000/month?

          July = 75 filings x $400 per filing = $30,000
          August = 59 filings x $400 per filing = $23,600 (-16 cases)
          September = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
          October = 109 filings x $400 per filing = $43.600
          November = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
          December = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
          January = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
          February = 204 filings x $400 per filing = $81,600

          Two items to note:

          1) Malibu Media is SLIGHTLY UNDER BUDGET (which means that we should expect to see roughly 20 more cases in their next batch of filings).

          2) Since the April 2016 breakup of Malibu Media, LLC and their former ‘mastermind’ Keith Lipscomb (who they sued for not sharing the settlement funds he ‘extorted’ from John Doe Defendants [harsh words, yes, but not the point of this article]), understanding how much money Malibu Media, LLC is spending can help us understand how much they expect to receive for that money.

          For the purposes of this short article, it appears as if months later, Malibu Media still appears to be keeping close to a $20,000 monthly budget of filing new cases.  It also appears as if Malibu Media is allocating their funds to file new cases along the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State area, and Texas.

          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.

            shalta book now cta