What this means is that as of this afternoon, the judge has begun to scrutinize the other Manny Film, LLC cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court (this time, Case No. 9:15-cv-80298). This one is due April 1st, 2015. I would not be surprised if the judge continues to go down the list of “Manny Film” cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court and kills each one, one “order to show cause” at a time.
It is also important to note that in my estimation, the Manny Film LLC lawsuits are “cut-and-paste” lawsuits copied from the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits filed across the United States. Unfortunately for Keith Lipscomb (the mastermind behind each of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, and now, the mastermind behind each and every Manny Film LLC lawsuit soon-to-be-filed across the U.S. District Courts), these ‘orders to show cause’ pose an existential threat to not only the Florida-based federal cases, but also to the other Manny Film LLC cases filed in the other federal district courts (upon which these Florida federal cases [when considered by the other federal judges] will be PERSUASIVE).
EDUCATIONAL NOTE: Even if all of the Manny Film LLC cases go away, the “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article is still helpful to discuss the concept that “an IP address (even one tracked to a particular defendant’s address using “solid” geolocation software) is INSUFFICIENT to identify and sue the account holder as the defendant in a bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.” Using the geolocation data alone as their source of “evidence” to support their claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff cannot properly state that the defendant 1) lives in the district for venue purposes, and 2) the plaintiff arguably even “fails to state a claim” against the accused defendant (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) language) because such geolocation software “evidence” does not prove (or sufficiently state) that the accused defendant is the downloader.
— CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
It appears to me as if the Manny Film LLC bittorrent piracy lawsuits in Southern Florida have just received their first black eye.
The Federal District Court in Florida has been grappling these past few years with the question of whether geolocation software is sufficient to identify the accused downloader. In short, federal venue rules (according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a)) state (in the context of a bittorrent piracy lawsuit) that in order for a copyright holder to file a lawsuit against a John Doe Defendant, the copyright holder must assert that the accused John Doe Defendant a) lives in the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed, and b) that a substantial part of the downloading and/or uploading happened in the federal district. The purpose for this is so that the defendant is sued in the right court.
However, in following the “bouncing ball” of the legal argument at play, the Florida federal court has realized that the plaintiff and all of its complicated geolocation software cannot prove the identity of any defendant. Not even one.
The Manny Film plaintiff can prove an IP address was connected to a bittorrent swarm that was downloading and distributing an unlicensed copy of the copyrighted film. They can prove that the IP address can be traced to a location (e.g., the accused downloader’s house). However, there is a logical gap between knowing the location where the download happened, and knowing that the accused defendant [most frequently, the account holder] was the downloader.
HERE’S THE KICKER… if the geolocation software cannot assert who the downloader is, how can the Manny Film LLC copyright holder assert 1) that the accused downloader was the one who was using the computer to download the copyrighted film (they have not placed him at the keyboard at the time of the download), and 2) if the Manny Film LLC copyright holder cannot bring any proof through their geolocation software — their only source of evidence — to determine who the accused downloader is, how can they competently state for the purposes of satisfying the venue requirement that the the accused downloader (whoever he or she might be) lives in the state in which the lawsuit is filed?
“Judge, I don’t know who the downloader is, but if I did know, he would live in your district!” – Copyright Troll
This brings me back to this nuanced argument where I was trying to frame it in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here is an e-mail that I wrote on November 8th, 2012 (remember, our older articles are still relevant even today):
I don’t know how to put this more plainly, and I HATE a “silver-bullet” argument, but I fail to see the weakness in a [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)] motion for failure to state a claim where the plaintiffs only know a) that an IP address downloaded the stuff, and b) that the named defendant is the account holder. It’s a fine point [which in my mind can be hammered home in the courts] but I understand the argument to be that assuming everything in the plaintiff’s complaint to be true, there is nothing that implicates the named defendant to be the person who did the download. In other words, there is no conclusive link [perhaps I need to do more research as to how strong the link needs to be to survive a 12(b)(6) motion] between the real defendant as referenced in the complaint [or who this person should be], and the named defendant [the ISP account holder].
Two analogies — 1) someone makes an incriminating phone call; there is no proof that the person who pays the phone bill (subscriber) made the call; 2) someone’s car does damage — [barring the negligence claim, which other attorneys here have done a wonderful job of killing] is the owner liable for torts that are committed with his car if the plaintiff cannot prove that he was in the car when it caused the damage?
In short, an IP address is NOT a person, and proving that an IP address did the download does not prove that the subscriber was the one who did the download.
So, turning back to the Manny Film LLC (Case No. 9:15-cv-80290) case in the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman references various Malibu Media LLC films lawsuit orders, and in turn orders the Manny Film LLC plaintiff to answer the same questions which killed the Malibu Media v. John Doe (Case No. 14-cv-20213) case and related cases. In the Malibu Media, LLC 14-CV-20213 case, (just for completeness,) Judge Ungaro stated “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”
The plaintiff has until March 31st, 2015 to do so, or else his Manny Film LLC cases filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will all be in jeopardy (remember, a ruling in one case in a particular district is BINDING on other cases in that district).
[HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) LITTLE DID I KNOW BACK IN 2015 THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS.
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.
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (FLSD) Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)
In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD) Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 ) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)
In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD) Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554) Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)
In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED) Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179) Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)
In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND) Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460) Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)
Motions to Quash ISP Subpoena Letters, Siemens Industry Software Lawsuits, Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Letters, and Helping John Does.
