Venice PI & Headhunter lawsuits come to Texas.
Literally one month ago, I wrote about the appearance of the UN4 Productions lawsuits suing accused downloaders of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie in Texas. Apparently, Gary Fischman, the plaintiff attorney for the various RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) subpoena based movie infringement lawsuits has earned the right to sue now for the Venice PI, LLC and Headhunter, LLC movie production companies.
Which movies are affiliated with these Texas lawsuits:
- Venice PI, LLC is suing for the unlawful download or viewing of the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie,
Headhunter, LLC is suing for the unlawful download of “A Family Man” movie (not to be confused with Nicholas Cage’s “Family Man” movie from a number of years ago.). Gary Fischman is their local counsel in Texas for these lawsuits.
UN4 Productions, Inc. is suing for the unlawful download of the “Boyka: Undisputed 4” movie. Gary Fischman is their local counsel in Texas for these lawsuits as well.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
List of Texas cases filed by Gary Fischman in the last month:
HEADHUNTER (17 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS):
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02352)
UN4 PRODUCTIONS (51 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02115)
VENICE PI (55 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02285)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02395)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02244)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT:
To those 120+ Defendants who are implicated by Gary Fischman as “John Doe” defendants in this lawsuit: Understand that the Texas federal judges will likely allow Gary Fischman to send a subpoena to the Comcast & AT&T ISPs to obtain the identities of those accused of downloading the various movies.
1) Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about your particular lawsuit.
First, read about your particular movie lawsuit (see FAQs on the lawsuits here):
- “Headhunter, LLC (A Family Man) FAQ,”
- “UN4 Productions, Inc. (Boyka: Undisputed 4) FAQ,” and
- “Venice PI, LLC (Once Upon a Time in Venice FAQ)“).
NOTE: Do not be fooled — each of these movies have become lawsuits because of Carl Crowell and his “common troll” RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) entity, of which Gary Fischman appears to be his Texas local counsel. We understand that Crowell (or one of his attorneys) have contacted each of the movie production companies and have secured a license to sue for copyright infringement on their behalf. Thus, the various FAQ pages will be similar, because it is the same entity that is behind the scenes of each of these movie lawsuits. (In Texas, they will all be filed by Gary Fischman.)
2) Learn about what an “objection with the court” or a “motion to quash” is, and whether you want to file one.
The letters from the ISPs will tell you that you have 30 days to file an objection with the court (which is referring to a motion to quash) before they are forced to hand over your information to Gary Fischman.
Do not get trapped in an emotional rush to file a “motion to quash” just because you learned that a motion to quash filing could stop your ISP from being required to hand over your information to the plaintiff (such a filing has actually been UNSUCCESSFUL, read why).
NOTE: The link I provided you above is from an article I wrote in *2010*, and now we are in 2017. This should give us some credibility, if we did not already have some in your eyes that we have an idea of what is going on in these cases.
The motion to quash issue was figured out by us attorneys SEVEN YEARS AGO, and yet there are still new law school graduates and other attorneys who still try to sell “motion to quash” packages, claiming they will “expose the fraud” of these cases for the same amount of money you could have settled for and guaranteed an exit from the lawsuit.
Just to be clear, a settlement is NOT the least expensive option in handling cases such as these. And, a motion to quash is NOT THE PLACE TO FIGHT YOUR LAWSUIT, and judges will get upset if you misuse this tool.
A motion to quash is a tool to determine 1) whether the subpoena is valid, and 2) whether the federal court has PERSONAL JURISDICTION over the accused defendant.
[For those of you who do not want to switch to another article: the short answer is that a motion to quash is a good tool to stop the ISP from handing out your information if the federal court does not have PERSONAL JURISDICTION over you (e.g., if you live in one state, but are sued in another state)].However, if you (an unnamed “John Doe” defendant) file a motion to quash, understand that the likely response from the plaintiff attorney is to oppose your motion to quash. This is what you will find with Gary Fischman’s responses in Texas.
Gary Fischman (or, whoever the plaintiff attorney is for whatever state your case is filed in) will likely state that you do not have STANDING to file the motion to quash because you are not a named defendant in this case.
[Plus, the subpoena was not issued to you, but to your ISP, and thus you are not a recipient of this subpoena, and it should be the ISP who should file the motion to quash, not you.]In short, don’t jump into a motion to quash frenzy just because you learn that the legal mechanism to stop a subpoena recipient from complying with the subpoena is called a motion to quash. Attorneys such as Gary Fischman are expecting this response; don’t fall into his trap.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
3) Learn about anonymity – how long you remain anonymous after receiving the subpoena from the ISP, and at what point your anonymity ends.
Second. Be aware of your anonymity, and use it to your advantage.
Understand each stage of the lawsuit, and know at what point you lose that anonymity. The reason this is relevant to you is because there is a finite amount of time in which you remain a “John Doe” defendant.
After the ISP hands over your information, in Texas, Gary Fischman will learn who you are, but your information is in no way made public. Further, your involvement as a potential defendant in your lawsuit will not made public until you are named and served as a defendant.
This is relevant because during this time, you can hire an attorney to converse with the plaintiff attorney on your behalf, and everything is done anonymously, meaning that your contact information never shows up on the court’s docket, on your record, in Google searches, or anywhere else.
Anonymity is relevant because once you lose your anonymity by being named and served, the fact that you were accused in a federal court of stealing a copyrighted movie becomes public knowledge for anyone who does a look-up of your name, including potential employers.
A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that the due date on the ISP subpoena is the date you lose your anonymity.
Wrong.
The date you lose your anonymity is the date your plaintiff attorney realizes that he will not be getting a settlement from you and he decides to change your status from a “John Doe” defendant to a “named defendant (your name as the defendant)”.
4) Learn about settlement factories, settlement options, and *when NOT to settle*.
Lastly, be aware that there are a number of settlement factories out there who will convince you that settling is the “cheapest” method of getting out of this case. This is simply not true.
The fact of whether you actually downloaded the movie is possibly the most relevant piece of information in determining whether to settle.
If you did not do it, then hiring an attorney to convince the plaintiff attorney not to name and serve you because you did not do the download could be the smartest thing you could do in any of these cases.
Question your attorneys and ask what percentage of cases they settle, and what percentage of cases they do not settle.
What if you DID do the download (or you DID watch the movie)?
If you have done the download for which you were sued (or if you have watched the movie), the second most relevant is what else you have downloaded, watched illegally, or what else is in your bittorrent software’s download folder.
The reason for this is because some bittorent clients “announce” to the bittorrent network which movies, music, e-books, and software you have downloaded, and which are actively in your “Download” folder available to be uploaded.
With this information, the plaintiff attorneys search which files are available from your IP address, and they assemble a list of files you have downloaded.
If you are an avid downloader, (while this information cannot be used to prove you downloaded THIS movie,) this evidence of “other titles downloaded” will affect how a plaintiff attorney such as Gary Fischman sees you as a potential target of this lawsuit. It will affect your chances of being named and served, and it will affect the leverage you have in settlement negotiations.
This is where a good lawyer is probably a good idea, especially one with leverage in settlement negotiations — one who is willing to step into court if the settlement negotiations go awry, even if it is simply to admit guilt and argue minimum $750 statutory damages from the court.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
In Summary:
In the end, having your attorney know the personality of your plaintiff attorney is possibly one of the most important items to consider when hiring an attorney.
Specifically with Gary Fischman, he has the mind of an engineer, and he treats his cases as such. Understanding how he thinks in considering each defendant is important in obtaining the best result, whether that is not settling the case, negotiating a settlement, or fighting the claims against you in litigation.
—
[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the various Texas-filed cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), 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 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.
