Tag Archives: 132019CC027599000005

Rachel Walker, Tyler Mamone

Will Strike 3 Sue Miami-Dade Florida Defendants in Federal Court?

Leave a comment

Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been filing in the Miami-Dade court since September 3rd, 2019 (and continues to file even today [see below this article are the most recent set of cases]).

To bring you up to speed:

On 10/31/2019, I wrote an initial article explaining how Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is using the Florida Miami-Dade County Court to unmask defendants’ identities.

On 1/20/2020, I wrote a follow-up article explaining how Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone might have other attorneys working their cases behind the scenes (interestingly enough, both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin). UPDATE (2/20/2020): Rachel Walker is now handling her own cases.

On 2/10/2020, because of questions I was getting about confusion surrounding whether to file a motion to quash in the Florida Miami-Dade Court, I wrote an article explaining how defense attorneys are luring defendants in as clients with a “bait and switch” which ends up forcing them to settle or be sued in their home state’s federal court.

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade cases have NO TEETH.

To begin the topic of whether Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will file a lawsuit against former Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants [or to understand why we are discussing this topic in the first place], the first question to ask is “why wouldn’t Strike 3 Holdings, LLC just sue Miami-Dade defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami-Dade Florida court itself?”

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases assert a claim of copyright infringement (which carries statutory damages of $150,000 per instance of infringement). These cases assert that the accused subscriber downloaded their copyrighted adult films using BitTorrent.

By definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit, it MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

The Florida Miami-Dade based lawsuits literally have no “teeth.” These cases are NOT copyright infringement lawsuits. In these state-based cases, Strike 3 Holdings LLC merely uses the Florida Bill of Discovery laws to uncover the identities of the defendants, but the threat of “we will name and serve you if you do not settle” has NO EFFECT if that accused defendant does not live in Florida.

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

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants must be sued in the federal court of the state in which they reside. *mic drop.*

Florida Plaintiff Attorneys Rachel Walker & Tyler Mamone are LIMITED to filing lawsuits in Florida.

Couple the “no teeth” comment (above) with the consideration that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone — the two attorneys who have been suing defendants under the Florida Pure Bill of Discovery — are merely licensed in Florida (NOTE: they could be licensed elsewhere, but keep reading for the point about STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY TERRITORIES).

TO BE CLEAR: Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone CAN technically sue a defendant in any federal court across the US. However, their client – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC appears to be highly territorial, and other plaintiff attorneys from other states already “own” the territories where Strike 3 Holdings, LLC files their lawsuits.

Thus, THEY will likely not financially benefit from a John Doe defendant of theirs being sued in a location where there is already ANOTHER Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorney filing lawsuits in that state.

For example, they wouldn’t be able to sue in New York or in Connecticut where Jackie James is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in that territory… or John Atkin, who is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in New Jersey.

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

So a better question is… if I do not settle the claims against me in the Miami-Dade Florida lawsuit, WILL *ANOTHER* STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY sue me in my home state?

Unfortunately the answer could be a yes. We simply don’t know what Strike 3 Holdings LLC plans to do with all the names it is unmasking in the Miami-Dade lawsuits.

Since Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone started suing defendants in the Miami-Dade Florida courts on September 3rd, 2019, Strike 3 Holdings LLC has sued 74 defendants in their home state’s federal courts.

Most recently, since January 1, 2020, they have filed the following cases against defendants in the following states:

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CALIFORNIA

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Central District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-00042)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.144.176.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00921)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.55.138 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00945)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.112.16.67 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00946)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.7.250 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00948)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.154.71 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00191)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.91.3.98 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00944)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)

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

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00067)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00068)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00209)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CONNECTICUT

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN FLORIDA*

*Florida is where Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker (the plaintiff attorneys from the Miami-Dade County lawsuits) are licensed.

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

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Middle District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 47.196.216.110 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00101)

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20499)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20503)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20506)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20516)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20517)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20647)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN ILLINOIS

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00773)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN MICHIGAN

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 4:20-cv-10143)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW JERSEY

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court

  • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
  • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP address 69.112.9.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00778)

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW YORK

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01435)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00554)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00819)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN VIRGINIA

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

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

Which of the above copyright infringement lawsuits were filed as a result of non-settlement of the Miami-Dade lawsuit?

I do not know whether all, some, or none of these cases were filed as a result of these defendants first being sued in the Florida Miami-Dade County Court.

Is there a way to actually check if Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants?

[*NOT USEFUL, BUT RELEVANT*: There is technically a way to track whether the IP addresses listed on the more recent federal court cases were once defendants in a Miami-Dade case, but it is a time consuming project.

The Miami-Dade County Court cases are viewable page-by-page, and each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC complaints have potentially hundreds of pages of attachments containing one IP address per defendant.

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

STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, if someone has the time — they can do a manual search to see if AT LEAST ONE IP address of the more recent federal-court cases (above) can be found in a Miami-Dade case.  If there is at least one IP address match, then yes, they are re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants.]

Focus on the bottom line: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC *is* actively suing, as you saw from the list of new cases.

This is possibly the most important point (which I demonstrated by compiling the most recent list of cases):

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is actively suing defendants in the federal courts, and their decision to file in the Miami-Dade Florida County Court [again] is not a replacement for the conventional copyright infringement lawsuits for $150,000 per instance of infringement, which by definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

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

[SIDE NOTE:] CASE LAW UPDATE AND THOUGHTS ABOUT FUTURE FORM OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC LAWSUITS.

To the reader from California that I spoke to in the past few days: I have learned of a recent case in the Southern District of California (3:19-cv-2452-JAH-LL; Doc. 4; “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 70.95.76.252”) where Judge Lopez granted expedited discovery to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (contrary to the way we thought case law was going in the Southern District of California).

I obviously will need to look into this further, but this order happened just yesterday (2/19/2020). Thus, it appears that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC CAN AND WILL continue filing lawsuits in California. (NJ case law is still in transition).

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

[Sorry for the fragmented note. If I have time, this will be an article of its own in the coming days. I will also be writing an article noting the problem that for the states where the federal courts have DISALLOWED Strike 3 Holdings, LLC from filing their “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address” cases, I suspect Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will immediately start naming and serving defendants in these states rather than first suing them as John Does and asking the federal court for expedited discovery. This way, they will avoid the expedited discovery questions altogether and proceed straight to the 21-day answer period in which the defendant will need to either file and answer and prepare for litigation (or settle the claims against them in this shortened 21-day period) — both really unfortunate options to the defendant that was just hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.]

In sum, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases… like a snake changes its skin… are changing their approach to their copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure we will be seeing the John Doe lawsuits in the same form as they have been suing in recent years, but for the moment, as you can clearly see, they are still being filed in the federal courts.

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

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

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

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

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

Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, and 2020-002019-CC-05.

State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005.

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

*2/12/2020 UPDATE: Still, no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed in the last three weeks:

NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.

NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.

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

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

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

Florida (FL), Miami-Dade County (FL), Motions to Quash, Rachel Walker, Strike 3 Holdings LLC, Tyler Mamone

Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach.

Leave a comment

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

Settlement Factory Attorneys are not Disclosing their Past Outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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