featured

How to Navigate This Site.

Welcome to the TorrentLawyer Blog, a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC resource.  The purpose of this sticky post is to be simplistic and help you to navigate this site (which as of 2021, has over 200+ articles on the copyright cases we have worked on since 2010).

All copyright infringement lawsuits are filed in Federal Courts and are bound by the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  However, depending on whether you are accused of downloading MOVIES OR FILMS, or whether you are accused of SOFTWARE PIRACY, [and WHERE YOU ARE in the timeline of the lawsuit (a John Doe defendant, or a named and served defendant) we will change how we interact with your copyright case.

The simplest approach to understanding your options is to understand WHERE YOU ARE IN THE LAWSUIT:

WHERE ARE YOU IN THE LAWSUIT?

You are likely in one of three places in your lawsuit.  You have either:

  1. you have been implicated as a “John Doe” defendant in a “MOVIE LAWSUIT,” (In re: Hawaii Telecom movie lawsuit info filed by Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP can be found HERE), or
  2. received an ISP subpoena notification letter implicating you as a “John Doe” defendant in a [Siemens Industry Software Inc.] “SOFTWARE PIRACY LAWSUIT,”
  3. you have been “NAMED AND SERVED” as a defendant in that lawsuit (this usually happens 90+ days later).

“MOVIE LAWSUITS” (e.g., Strike 3 Holdings LLC, Malibu Media LLC, Fallen Productions Inc., HB Productions Inc.)

1. You received an “ISP Subpoena Notification Letter” from your ISP and you have been implicated as a “John Doe” defendant in a lawsuit.

2. You have since been “Named and Served” as a defendant, and you have procedural deadlines.

“SOFTWARE PIRACY LAWSUITS” (e.g., Siemens Industry Software Inc.)

3. You are an engineer accused of using Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s copyrighted software.

DOING IN-DEPTH RESEARCH ON EACH COPYRIGHT HOLDER:

Alternatively, instead of going through a WALKTHROUGH that applies to where you are in the lawsuit (our recommended choice), you can delve more in-depth into your particular copyright holder to learn what our experiences have been [by reading the in-depth blog articles that we have written] over the years.  By doing this you will get significantly more historical information and FAQ articles, but remember — I wrote these articles as the cases unfolded.

STEP 1: CHOOSE YOUR COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Follow the links “down the rabbit hole” to learn everything you can about the copyright holder.  When you have read enough, proceed to STEP 2. and contact me with your questions.

STEP 2: BOOK A PHONE CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY

ONCE YOU HAVE READ ABOUT YOUR COPYRIGHT HOLDER, SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR OPTIONS.

Once you get the information you are looking for, you’ll probably want to contact a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney to speak about your particular issue.

The three methods in which to speak to a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney are:

Method #1) Schedule a phone appointment.

  • SCHEDULE A PHONE CONSULTATION. Most phone consultation appointments are free (I like them that way), but there are some paid spots if you have a last minute issue.

Click here to schedule a phone consultation: https://torrentlawyer.acuityscheduling.com

Method #2) Fill out a contact form.

    Method #3) E-mail me at [email protected], or send me a Text Message/WhatsApp to 713-364-3476.

    STEP 3: E-SIGN RETAINER AGREEMENT, RELAX.

    Once you speak to an attorney, you will be provided an e-mail containing a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC fee agreement.  Once you decide to retain the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to represent you in your matter, follow the instructions to e-sign the agreement.

    The steps are 1) e-sign the agreement, 2) process your payment, 3) provide paperwork relevant to your matter.

    At that point, we become your attorney.

    My Preference:

    As the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, and the author of this blog (and as an attorney who has served hundreds of clients in these cases), I prefer that you grab a phone appointment, or write me using either the contact form or by just sending me an e-mail.

    There are often hundreds of people implicated in these lawsuits each month, and it is common for more people to call than we have staff to answer those calls. To competently serve our clients, we limit the number of clients we take each month, and there is a natural limit on the number of calls we are physically able to answer.  As such, I ask that you be patient, and that you follow the instructions in order to get in touch with me.  If you do, we could possibly be speaking about your case in the next few hours.

    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (“X-ART”) LAWSUITS, STRATEGIES, SETTLEMENTS.

    malibu-media-case-consolidations

    I have added this page for internet users who have been entangled in the Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) cases.  Malibu Media, LLC is an adult film / pornographic film producer, and they sue individual John Doe Defendants for the bittorrent download of “siterips” based on their demographics in federal courts across the US.

    The goal of this page is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber having IP address 182.765.456.844 (Case No. 7:12-cv-03812) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Malibu Media, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

    WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS (FAQ):

    Below is a good starting point to understand who Malibu Media, LLC is, and why you are being sued.  For a more in-depth article on the Malibu Media, LLC copyright trolling scheme, visit the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (‘X-ART’ SITERIP) MOVIE LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA” article on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC site.

    WHAT IS MALIBU MEDIA, LLC?

    Malibu Media, LLC is the company filing the copyright infringement lawsuits for the “x-art.com” adult film website.  Since 2012, Malibu Media, LLC has flooded the federal courts over 6000+ copyright infringement lawsuits based on bittorrent downloads of their adult film movies.  Each lawsuit sues for the illegal download of one film, but alleges that the defendant downloaded 20-80 additional titles.  They seek $150,000 in statutory damages for the download of that one film.

    Malibu Media, LLC is notorious for accusing downloaders of downloading “siterips,” where an internet user clicks on one (1) bittorrent file, but within that bittorrent file are 20-80 additional videos.  People claim that Malibu Media, LLC is ‘leaking’ and uploading these siterips themselves, and then tracking the bittorrent swarms to see who downloads them.

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

    What is Malibu Media’s affiliation with Guardaley?

    Malibu Media, LLC has been intimately associated with a German company called Guardaley to track their bittorrent swarms and provide so-called forensic “evidence” in the many lawsuits.  Guardaley is a questionable company and their tracking methods have been discredited by the German courts.  Guardaley is known to claim that an accused defendant downloaded an entire file (or a set of videos) as soon as he or she clicks on the bittorrent file and loads up the bittorrent software (before even a byte of data is even downloaded).  Many accused defendants that I have spoken to claim that they never finished any of Malibu Media, LLC’s downloads (yet they were sued anyway).

    How does Malibu Media, LLC choose which downloader to sue?

    Once a Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader, they continue to track that downloader over the course of months.  Lawsuits are filed against downloaders based on the geolocation of where the accused downloader apparently lives.

    MALIBU MEDIA USES INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS BASED ON ZIP CODE TO DETERMINE WHO TO SUE.

    Malibu Media has been known to check the location of the IP address against a list of zip codes, and compare those zip codes to demographic income information and home property values within those zip codes.  Poorer communities generally are discarded, and wealthier communities end up prioritised and sued.  The reason for this is that wealthier professionals have larger bank accounts, more assets, larger families, and are likely professionals and specialists within their trade, meaning that they are more apt to settle a lawsuit filed against them for the download and viewing of pornographic materials.

    How much does Malibu Media, LLC ask for in a settlement?

    In a settlement negotiation, Malibu Media, LLC knows that copyright holders traditionally ask for $3,500 for the download of one title.  They also know that settlements can be anywhere between $1,500-$1,800 once negotiated by an attorney.  For this reason, they start their negotiations at $1,500 PER TITLE when they are called by an accused defendant.

    Thus, an accused downloader who was claimed to download 20 titles should expect an initial settlement offer of $30,000 ($1,500 x 20 = $30K; an obscene number).

    As soon as an attorney opens up settlement negotiations, Malibu Media, LLC is known to immediately drop the settlement asking price to $750 PER TITLE (they refer to this as ‘minimum statutory damages,’ which multiplied by the number of titles they ask for in a settlement results in an obscene settlement asking price).  From there, we would normally determine 1) whether to settle or fight the case based on the merits of the lawsuit (many of my clients simply do not do the download), or 2) whether to negotiate down from there.

    What about Malibu Media anonymous settlements?”

    Malibu Media, LLC settlements, with some tweaking of the settlement agreement during the settlement negotiations can be an anonymous settlement.  There are a small number of settlement factory attorneys who are advertising and advocating “anonymous settlements.”  Buyer beware, as settling anonymously in the way they suggest can expose you to additional lawsuits, AFTER you have just paid Malibu a settlement.

    Click here to read about “Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer,” written on 7/23/2017.

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

    How our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC uses LEVERAGE to minimize the settlement amount.

    Because we are willing to fight each case on the merits (remember, Malibu Media lawsuits are based on Guardaley tracking methods, which are faulty), we do have leverage to negotiate the settlements down to something significantly more reasonable.  Up front, I do not encourage settlements nor do I push them on clients (especially if they did not do the download), but settlement negotiations are a good tool to consider when deciding whether to proceed with defending the case in court, or whether offering a settlement can minimize the costs to accused defendants.

    (If we are fighting, here is a settlement tactic:  Remember, if a settlement is offered and we end up fighting the case, and the ultimate judgement amount ends up being LESS than the settlement amount we offered, Malibu Media, LLC’s attorneys will likely be liable to the accused defendant for ALL THE ATTORNEY FEES SPENT AFTER THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS MADE.)

    HOW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC OPERATES THEIR LAWSUITS ACROSS THE U.S.

    Malibu Media, LLC (and correspondingly, Guardaley) operates their lawsuits from one central location.  They usually choose a figurehead, or a law firm to manage and coordinate all of the attorneys filing lawsuits on their behalf across the US.

    Until 2016, Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were run by Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb & Eisenberg (now defunct, I believe).  After Lipscomb, they were temporarily run locally from a law firm called Pillar Law Firm, and now I have reason to believe they are apparently being run by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity.

    WHY DID LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA, LLC PART WAYS?

    The reason Keith Lipscomb and Malibu Media, LLC parted ways was because Lipscomb apparently did not pay Malibu Media, LLC the millions of dollars they made in settlements.  

    I have analyzed the numbers and it is unclear whether the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were profitable for Lipscomb, or whether he is yet one more copyright troll attorney who has cheated his copyright troll client.

    WHERE IS MALIBU MEDIA SUING DEFENDANTS?  WHAT ATTORNEYS ARE THEY USING?

    Malibu Media appears to be focusing their lawsuits in Texas, and the New York / New Jersey / Connecticut tri-state area.

    Malibu’s attorney for the Texas cases is Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm.

    Malibu’s attorney for the NY & CT cases is Jacqueline James.

    Malibu’s attorney for the NJ cases is Patrick Cerillo.

    You can read the details about these three Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, here.

    There are other attorneys filing Malibu Media cases across the US, and I have listed the main attorneys below.  Those that file sporadically have been dropped from the list.

    List of Malibu Media, LLC single-defendant cases filed as of 3/17/2017:

    Jacqueline James (28% of all Malibu Cases)
    Connecticut (38 Cases)
    New York (40 Cases)

    Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (16% of all Malibu Cases)
    Texas (42 Cases)

    Patrick Cerillo (14% of all Malibu Cases)
    New Jersey (38 Cases)

    Joel Bernier (6% of all Malibu Cases)
    Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

    Mary Schulz (4% of all Malibu Cases)
    Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

    Jon Hoppe (3% of all Malibu Cases)
    Maryland (7 Cases)

    Jordan Rushie (3% of all Malibu Cases)
    Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

    John Decker (1% of all Malibu Cases)
    Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

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

    TorrentLawyer Malibu Media, LLC Articles:

    Below are recent articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Malibu Media, LLC plaintiff:

    “Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer.,” written on 7/23/2017

    “Judge forces Malibu Media to reveal the accuracy of their geolocation technology,” on 5/10/2017

    “Malibu Media movies, and why it is important to know this list,” written on 5/5/2017.

    “Malibu Media Cases and Why To Track Their Monthly Filings,” written on 5/4/2017.

    “Turnkey ‘Settlement Factory’ Defense Attorneys and Malibu Media LLC,” written on 3/29/2017.

    “Malibu Media, LLC appears to be adhering to an ‘Old Guard, New Guard’ distinction between their older and newer attorneys,” written on 3/13/2017.

    “Confirmed: Malibu Media invests in $400 filing fees at $20,000/month,” written on  3/13/2017.

    “2017 Malibu Media – Where Cases Are Filed and Who are the Attorneys?” written on 3/13/2017.

    “Malibu Media, LLC cases facing hard scrutiny in California,” written on 12/23/2016.

    “Malibu Media, LLC appears to be on a $20,000/month filing budget,” written on 12/23/2016.

    “Was Lipscomb’s Malibu Media v. Doe campaign profitable?” written on 12/22/2016.

    “What happened to Malibu Media, LLC in April 2016?” written on 12/21/2016.

    “Is Malibu Media “faking” the publication requirement in their lawsuits?” written on 2/9/2016.

    “Judge rules that (Guardaley) German investigator’s evidence is insufficient to prove direct infringement” written on 7/28/2015.

    “My Response to the yet-to-be-written guilty verdict in the Malibu Media, LLC Bellwether Trial (PAED)” written on 6/12/2013.

    “Malibu Media targets rich neighborhoods, and introduces prejudicial character evidence into each case” written on 6/4/2013.

    “UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC ‘SINGLE-DOE’ CASES FILED,” written on 3/7/2013.

    “California Judge Consolidates ALL Malibu Media, LLC Cases, and WHY THIS IS BAD,” written on 7/12/2012.

    “(UPDATED) Forum Shopping by Malibu Media, LLC Copyright Trolls” written on 5/7/2012.

    “Malibu Media, LLC cases go down in FLAMES in Virginia,” written on 4/3/2012.

    “Malibu Media, LLC – Friend or Foe?  Foe!” written on 3/23/2012

    “Malibu Media, LLC — New “Copyright Troll” on the Block,” written on 3/6/2012.

    FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.  

    To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  

    Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

    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.

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

      LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY, AS OF 3/12/2017)

      Cases in the Connecticut District Court (38)
      Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00187, 3:17-cv-00188, 3:17-cv-00189, 3:17-cv-00190, 3:17-cv-00195, 3:17-cv-00203, 3:17-cv-00213, 3:17-cv-00219, 3:17-cv-00220, 3:17-cv-00221, 3:17-cv-00223, 3:17-cv-00224, 3:17-cv-00225, 3:17-cv-00227, 3:17-cv-00229, 3:17-cv-00230, 3:17-cv-00232, 3:17-cv-00233, 3:17-cv-00249, 3:17-cv-00250, 3:17-cv-00251, 3:17-cv-00252,  3:17-cv-00253, 3:17-cv-00254, 3:17-cv-00256, 3:17-cv-00257, 3:17-cv-00258, 3:17-cv-00259, 3:17-cv-00271, 3:17-cv-00272, 3:17-cv-00273, 3:17-cv-00274, 3:17-cv-00275, 3:17-cv-00276, 3:17-cv-00277, 3:17-cv-00278, 3:17-cv-00279, 3:17-cv-00280)

      Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (12)
      Attorney: Mary K. Schulz of the Media Litigation Firm, P.C.

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.138.51 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01183)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
      …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address96.95.112.34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01209)

      Cases Filed in the Maryland District Court (7)
      Attorney: Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”) of the Law Office of Jon a Hoppe, Esquire

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 8:17-cv-00397, 8:17-cv-00396, 1:17-cv-00402, 8:17-cv-00401, 1:17-cv-00398, 1:17-cv-00399, 8:17-cv-00400)

      Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (16)
      Attorney: Joel A. Bernier of Sheikh Legal Services PLLC
      176 S. Main St., Suite 1, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 ([email protected])

      MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:17-cv-10422)
      v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
      v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
      v. IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
      v. IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
      v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
      v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
      v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
      v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
      v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
      v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
      v. IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
      v. IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
      v. IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
      v. IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
      v. IP Address 68.40.27.99 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10441)

      Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court (38)
      Attorney: Patrick Joseph Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”)

      MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246, 2:17-cv-01251, 2:17-cv-01237, 2:17-cv-01240)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
      v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
      v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
      v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
      v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.57.99.138 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01321)

      Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court (10)
      Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

      Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-01079, 2:17-cv-01078, 2:17-cv-01084, 2:17-cv-01077, 2:17-cv-01083, 2:17-cv-01076, 2:17-cv-01081, 2:17-cv-01080, 2:17-cv-01075, 2:17-cv-01082)

      Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court (30)
      Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00983, 1:17-cv-00985, 1:17-cv-00987, 1:17-cv-00988, 1:17-cv-00989, 1:17-cv-00992, 1:17-cv-00994, 1:17-cv-00995, 1:17-cv-01065, 1:17-cv-01067, 1:17-cv-01068, 1:17-cv-01069, 1:17-cv-01070, 1:17-cv-01072, 1:17-cv-01074, 1:17-cv-01075, 1:17-cv-01076, 1:17-cv-01078, 1:17-cv-01088, 1:17-cv-01094, 1:17-cv-01095, 1:17-cv-01096, 1:17-cv-01097, 1:17-cv-01098, 1:17-cv-01099, 1:17-cv-01100, 1:17-cv-01101, 1:17-cv-01102, 7:17-cv-00981, 7:17-cv-00982)

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

      Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (8)
      Attorney: A. Jordan Rushie (“Jordan Rushie”) of Flynn Wirkus Young PC / Rushie Law

      MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00662, 2:17-cv-00509, 2:17-cv-00506, 2:17-cv-00510, 2:17-cv-00508, 2:17-cv-00507, 2:17-cv-00512, 2:17-cv-00511)

      Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court (42)
      Attorney: Andrew Darshan Kumar (“Andrew Kumar”) and Michael J. Lowenberg (“Mike Lowenberg”) of the Lowenberg Law Firm

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:17-cv-00413, 4:17-cv-00415, Case No. 4:17-cv-00417, 4:17-cv-00418, 4:17-cv-00420, 4:17-cv-00421, 4:17-cv-00422, 4:17-cv-00423, 4:17-cv-00424, 4:17-cv-00425, 4:17-cv-00465, 4:17-cv-00466, 4:17-cv-00468, 4:17-cv-00469, 4:17-cv-00470, 4:17-cv-00471, 4:17-cv-00472, 4:17-cv-00473, 4:17-cv-00474, 4:17-cv-00475, 4:17-cv-00476, 4:17-cv-00477,  4:17-cv-00478, 4:17-cv-00479, 4:17-cv-00480, 4:17-cv-00481, 4:17-cv-00482, 4:17-cv-00483, 4:17-cv-00484, 4:17-cv-00485, 4:17-cv-00486, 4:17-cv-00487, 4:17-cv-00488, 4:17-cv-00489, 4:17-cv-00490, 4:17-cv-00491, 4:17-cv-00492, 4:17-cv-00493, 4:17-cv-00494, 4:17-cv-00495, 4:17-cv-00497, and 4:17-cv-00498.)

      Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (3)
      Attorney: John Carlin Decker, II (“John Decker”) of the Law Office of John C. Decker II
      5207 Dalby Lane, Burke, VA 22015 (John is still using his Verizon e-mail when he files the lawsuits — [email protected])

      Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00192, 1:17-cv-00193, 1:17-cv-00194)

      —
      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.

        New Siemens Industry Software Inc. Software Piracy Lawsuit.

        Siemens PLM Software Lawsuit NX

        SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. SOFTWARE LAWSUITS — “THEY’RE BACK!”

        I didn’t want to let this one slide. Remember the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits (where Siemens sued a number of engineers who used their NX software without a license)? Well, in July, 2018, they have filed their newest copyright Infringement lawsuit (this is the FIFTH TIME they are suing), this time against 107 John Doe Defendants (here in our own Texas Southern District Court, no less).

        Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (4:18-cv-02344), filed July, 2018

        I’ve already written all that needs to be known about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits

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

        Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Piracy Lawsuit
        Screenshot from Siemens PLM Software’s website on the NX Mach 3 software.

        What happened to the Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s older lawsuits?

        WAVE 1

        In Wave 1, Siemens solicited licenses for their NX software. At first, we thought that these were bittorrent-based lawsuits like the others we have been dealing with, but then we learned that Siemens was actually tracking the unlicensed USE of the software (e.g., think “software phone home”).

        This complicated the lawsuits because they were dealing with actual evidence (rather than the “snapshot bittorrent-based evidence” we have seen in the movie lawsuits). As a result, we put together a list of steps an attorney should take in defending a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit, and this has proven to be an effective strategy.

        Over time, the lawsuit progressed, and eventually Siemens dismissed the lawsuit once they realized who they wanted to name and serve in their own lawsuits, and they filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits against companies they discovered were using their software without a license.

        WAVE 2

        In Wave 2, Siemens filed a similar lawsuit, this time against 100 new defendants. They surprised a number of defendants with settlement numbers of $50,000+ (eventually, we learned that they were settling licenses to their software, and they actually cost that much). This second wave lawsuit “on the books” looked to be a failure because they missed a FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline to name and serve defendants. As a result, they dismissed the entire lawsuit, however, I know that they continued after the dismissal to contact accused defendants (or their attorneys) with the intention of having those accused defendants [now dismissed] purchase a license to cover their use of the Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX software.

        WAVES 3-4 (2017 – mid-2018)

        In Waves 3-4, Siemens continued to target engineers in their lawsuits.  The purpose of these lawsuits was to “legitimize” those who were using their NX software “for profit.”  They were more reasonable this time on the settlement amounts (no settlements, just purchase of software licenses), but they allowed the defendant some leeway in determining what software title would best benefit the user, and whether Mach 3 was needed, or whether a lower-cost alternative was an option.  Siemens Industry Software Inc. also started to discuss settlement negotiations themselves (e.g., offering money to settle the claims), however, this never materialized.

        WAVE 5 (late 2018)

        Now in Wave 5, I do not yet know whether these 107 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers. However, at least the lawsuit itself (its intentions, and what to expect) are less of a mystery, as we were able to settle a number of claims in their previous lawsuits through the purchase of a software license.

        2020 UPDATE:

        WAVES 6-7 (2019):

        In Wave 6-7 (2019), Siemens Industry Software Inc. changed their strategy, attempting to streamline the settlement process.  In previous cases, those that used the software for personal reasons (e.g., academic, training, 3D printing, designing private home uses, etc.) were considered “tinkerers.”  In previous lawsuits, Siemens did not require this group of individuals to obtain a software license.

        IN WAVES 6 AND 7, *THIS CHANGED*.  Siemens Industry Software Inc. asked most defendants to buy software to legitimize their use.  The software did not need to be the same $30,000 NX software they used prior to being sued, but lesser versions with fewer features, or altogether other software packages [at a steep discount] were presented as options.

        WAVE 8 (2020):

        Now we are in Wave 8 (2020).  In this wave, there are two lawsuits; one has 150 John Doe Defendants, and the other has only 10 John Doe Defendants.  I do not yet know whether these 150 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers.  I suspect that the 150 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00798) case are all new defendants, and that 10 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00801) case are old defendants who did not settle the claims against them.

        As always, here is how an attorney should be handling a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit, and how we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC would handle your Siemens Industry Software Inc. case. This has been an effective strategy in each of the various Siemens Industry Software lawsuits, and thus I am suggesting it again with this newest wave of lawsuits.

        —
        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. software copyright case and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at [email protected], you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Siemens Industry Software 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.

          VENICE PI, LLC (“ONCE UPON A TIME IN VENICE”) LAWSUITS

          venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI

          I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the Venice PI, LLC (a.k.a. the “Once Upon a Time in Venice”) movie lawsuit cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, or you hear that a Venice PI subpoena has been issued to an ISP, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Venice PI, LLC v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00029) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Venice PI, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

          Venice PI subpoena ISP, Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuit

          Venice PI, LLC v. Does Lawsuits

          Venice PI, LLC is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the “Once Upon a Time in Venice (2017)” movie, starring Bruce Willis.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

          Accused internet users [in receipt of VENICE PI subpoenas] are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., CenturyLink, Comcast, Hawaii Telecom, Verizon Fios, Time Warner Cable, etc.), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection to the Venice PI subpoena with the court (referring to a “motion to quash“).

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

          Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC 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 Venice PI, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

          RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE VENICE PI SUBPOENA CASES:

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the various North Carolina District Courts

          Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Eastern District Court:
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00337)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00334)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00333)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00340)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00339)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-00089)

          Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Middle District Court:
          VENICE PI, LLC v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00611)
          VENICE PI, LLC v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00610)

          Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Western District Court:
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00409)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00170)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoena ordered in the New York District Courts
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.187.92.79 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04904)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-73.96.114.240 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01002)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-71.59.242.118 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01001)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00284)
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00285)
          VENICE PI, LLC v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02274)
          VENICE PI, LLC v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02328)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01664)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court
          Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1; et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00335)

          VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
          Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-01076, Case No. 2:17-cv-01075, Case No. 2:17-cv-01074, Case No. 2:17-cv-00988, Case No. 2:17-cv-00990, Case No. 2:17-cv-00991)

          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI subpoena-based 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 Venice PI subpoena, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

          BLOG POSTS:

          Article(s) Written on the Once Upon a Time in Venice / Venice PI subpoenas:

          “Venice PI LLC (not so “new” copyright troll) filing in select Carl Crowell local counsel courts,” written on 7/20/2017

          “Everything you need to know in one page about your Venice PI, LLC (“Once Upon a Time in Venice”) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” written on 7/17/2017

          HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A VENICE PI SUBPOENA CLIENT:

          Because bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases appear to be similar, I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.  (Look here for an article on when to hire an attorney, and at what point does it become too late to hire an attorney.)

          Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf.

          STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

          Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.

          STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.

          Carl Crowell and his local counsel across the US (here in Texas, Gary Fischman) appear to be researching the claims and linking the accused IP addresses to determine whether that accused defendant has been involved in the download of other copyrighted films.  They appear to be watching the activity of the IP address (specifically, before and after the date the ISP sends the subpoena notice to the account holders) to see if there is a change in the downloading activity of the accused subscriber.

          It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates.  The plaintiff attorneys have data that they rely on, but their reliance on that data is based on a STORY which may or may not have an alternative explanation.  Obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims in order to refute their story without admitting guilt on your behalf.

          STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER BY PAYING A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).

          Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the Venice PI, LLC attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

          The “no settlement” letter option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download, or the plaintiff attorney was unwilling to come to an amicable arrangement.

          Obviously if neither side can agree on an early solution to the problem, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

          STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.

          Many accused defendants downloaded the copyrighted movie not realizing that the download was illegal.  This is because there is software (e.g., Popcorn Time) which, on its face, appears to be legitimate.  However, unbeknownst to the end user, Popcorn Time uses a bittorrent backbone in order to acquire the file for the end user.  It is here that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the Popcorn Time software joins one or more bittorrent swarms in order to acquire the video.

          popcorn_time-venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit

          Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a software source is legitimate or not.  For example, as far as I understand, the videos presented on the Popcorn Time software are usually pirated, and downloading the videos or viewing the videos can get the end user sued for copyright infringement.  Contrast this with other movie sources, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc., these are legitimate.  However, there are many “in between” software platforms and websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.  Most notoriously – Crackle.  So far, to me it looks as if Crackle movies are legitimate and can be viewed without being sued for copyright infringement, but I could easily be wrong and we will not know this until the lawsuits start flying.

          Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Venice PI, LLC to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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

          STEP 4A) IF ATTORNEY IS UNCOOPERATIVE, CONSIDER ARGUING FOR MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES

          Obviously this is not a preferred outcome, but it still must be considered.  If an attorney is unwilling to settle (or if he or she is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, e.g., asking for too much money, or requiring the client to take some action outside negotiating a settlement agreement), there is another alternative strategy.  Have your attorney file an answer on your behalf, admit guilt to the claims of copyright infringement, and argue for what is called “minimum statutory damages” of $750 plus the other side’s attorney fees (which at this point would be minimal).  While not a preferred alternative, it is a method of forcing a reasonable settlement amount upon the plaintiff attorney if the download actually occurred.

          STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

          The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable.  The terms should not ‘admit guilt’ on behalf of the client, and the scope of the contract should include not only the accused defendant (the account holder), but also the household and/or family members.

          There are other crucial elements to have in a settlement agreement (e.g., attorney fee shifting specific to copyright infringement lawsuits), but the above should be sufficient.

          STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

          This is self explanatory. Venice PI, LLC is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

          STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.

          Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

          The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit (assuming the John Doe Defendant signed first), the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

          Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC 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 Venice PI, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

          TIMELINE: VENICE PI SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

          Any Venice PI, LLC “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the VENICE PI subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a Venice PI subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

          NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own article, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the Venice PI / “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie cases.

          VENICE PI Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

          A VENICE PI subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading Venice PI LLC’s “Once Upon a Time in Venice (2017)” movie.

          VENICE PI Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

          The federal judge approves the VENICE PI subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the VENICE PI subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the VENICE PI subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a VENICE PI subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the VENICE PI subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

          The ISP forwards the VENICE PI Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

          You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the VENICE PI subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Venice PI, LLC v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

          The ISP complies with the VENICE PI Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

          Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the VENICE PI subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

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

          The exact moment your anonymity expires.

          At this point, the life of the VENICE PI subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

          Your anonymity expires once the VENICE PI plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Once Upon a Time in Venice (2017)” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

          NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC 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 Venice PI, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

          In sum, about this article.

          In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.

          —
          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC 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 Venice PI, 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.

            SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. LAWSUITS

            Siemens PLM | Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Piracy Lawsuit

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc.) lawsuits have been filed in federal courts since 2011.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Siemens Industry Software Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

            JUST THE FACTS.

            SIEMENS LAWSUIT WALKTHROUGH (JOHN DOE): I WAS CAUGHT USING SIEMENS SOFTWARE. WHAT MUST I KNOW, WHAT MUST I DO. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS.

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. has been known for suing John Doe Defendants across the US for the unauthorized use of their NX 7, NX 8, NX 8.5, NX 9, NX 10, NX 11, NX 12, FEMAP, and Solid Edge software versions.  Recent lawsuits have expanded the software to include a mix of other copyrighted titles owned by Siemens Industry Software.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

            Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

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

            CASE HISTORY OF THE SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. CASES:

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as “Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc.” or “Siemens PLM Software”) has been filing lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in federal courts across the US since 2011.

            In 2011, Siemens Industry Software Inc. started their lawsuits in New York (NYSD) with two innocuous cases containing 50 John Doe Defendants which spanned NX 7 users living across the US. This led Siemens PLM to sue TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC in the Texas Eastern District Court (TXED) later in the year.

            In 2012, they sued 50 John Doe Defendants in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED).

            From 2012-early 2014, there was a lack of lawsuits from Siemens, but in 2014, they sued 100 John Doe Defendants AGAIN in New York (NYSD). Later, they again reached into Texas (TXED), but this time, they sued a number of engineering companies, including BTL Machine, Inc., and Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC. They also initiated two John Doe lawsuits, Case Nos. 4:15-cv-00582, and 4:15-cv-00017.

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

            2014-2015 Siemens Industry Software Inc. continued its litigation strategy in the Texas Eastern District Courts for the remainder of 2015.

            2016 was a busy year for Siemens Industry Software Inc., as they filed large 100-Defendant cases against John Doe Defendants, this time in the Houston-based Texas Southern District Courts (TXSD). They also reached their individual lawsuits into both Ohio (OHSD) and Connecticut (CTD) where they sued Manufacturing Services International, Inc. and Demin, an individual defendant.  The main “100-person John Doe” lawsuits eventually suffered procedural issues of Siemens missing deadlines to name and serve defendants, and the lawsuit was dismissed.  However, even after the lawsuit was dismissed, Siemens continued to contact select defendants soliciting $50K+ settlements.

            In 2017-2021, Siemens Industry Software Inc. has continued filing lawsuits in the Texas Southern District Court (TXSD), most recently in their Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385) lawsuit.

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

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits in Texas

            The cases of note currently in Texas are:
            2021:
            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385), filed in February, 2021.

            2020:
            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00798), filed in March, 2020, and
            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00801), filed on the same day as the Does 1-150 case.

            2019:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-118 (Case No. 4:19-cv-02448), filed in July, 2019, and
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129), filed in January, 2019.

            2018:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (Case No. 4:18-cv-02344), filed in July, 2018, and
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:18-cv-00397), filed in February, 2018.

            2017:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-93 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01796), filed in June, 2017.

            2016:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552), filed in December, 2016, and
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422), filed in May, 2016.

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

            As of writing this page, most of the attention and controversy will be surrounding the February 2021 4:21-cv-00385 case here in Texas.  As such, to learn how a Texas defense attorney should handle a Siemens Industry Software Inc. case based on their past filings, click here.

            WHERE DO I LEARN ABOUT THE SIEMENS CASES IN DEPTH?

            To learn about the Siemens cases in depth, click here.

            SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. STRATEGY:

            In short, it appears as if the Siemens Industry Software Inc. strategy is as follows:

            1) File a large 100+ Defendant lawsuit, encourage the court to approve early discovery allowing Siemens Industry Software Inc. to obtain the contact information for each of those 100+ John Doe Defendants.
            2) Contact each of those defendants, convert accused defendants into paying customers (where the cost of the software can range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars).
            3) Expand the lawsuit inquiry to the employer of the accused defendant engineer, and ascertain whether they have purchased volume licenses for their engineer employees.
            4) Name and Serve and/or sue one or so defendants in a court outside the jurisdiction of the original court (this demonstrates that their reach is not limited to the courts in which they filed their original lawsuit). Unclear whether this is to obtain a $150,000 judgment for copyright infringement, or to convince that company to comply with their software licensing demands. I understand the goal of the lawsuits is to convert accused defendants into customers.
            5) Proceed over the next three years contacting the various John Doe Defendants [even after the case is dismissed <– this has happened]. File a new lawsuit against 100+ more John Doe Defendants, and repeat Steps 1-5.

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

            BLOG POSTS:

            Articles Written on the Siemens Industry Software Inc. cases (most recent first):

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. – Software Piracy Lawsuits — “They’re Back!”, on 7/30/2017 (modified for each of the subsequent lawsuits filed, most recently on 3/8/2020).

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX-based lawsuits – converting accused engineers into loyal customers, on 1/9/2017.

            Software Developers are now tracking piracy through the USE of downloaded software, on 9/9/2016.

            The Siemens Industry Software Inc. Case IS a Bittorrent Case, on 6/20/2017.

            What to do about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does case (TX), on 1/16/2016.

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

            LIST OF FEDERAL COURT CASES FILED (*UPDATED*):

            IN THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT COURT:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. et al v. Demin (Case No. 3:16-cv-00553)

            IN THE NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1 – 100 (Case No. 1:14-cv-01926)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08469)

            IN THE OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software In v. Manufacturing Services International, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-00182)

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

            IN THE PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 2:12-cv-06795)

            IN THE TEXAS EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. BTL Machine, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-00506)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00582)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC (Case No. 4:14-cv-00002)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00017)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC (Case No. 6:11-cv-00679)

            IN THE TEXAS SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
            *NEW* Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385)
            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00798)
            Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00801)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-118 (Case No. 4:19-cv-02448)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (Case No. 4:18-cv-02344)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:18-cv-00397)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-93 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01796)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552)
            Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422)

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

            HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. CLIENT:

            Because software-based copyright infringement cases are especially concerning the John Doe Defendants who are accused of using pirated software (such as what is going on right now with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 [4:21-cv-00385] case in Texas), I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.

            Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf — specifically with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385) case:

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

            STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

            Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.

            STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.

            Siemens Industry Software Inc. likes to research the claims, and they take their time in getting the entire picture before discussing settlement. It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates. And obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims without admitting guilt on your behalf.

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

            STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER A SOFTWARE PURCHASE, A LICENSE, A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).

            Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not the case with the Siemens Industry Software lawsuits. Rather, it appears as if they are seeking to convert those using unlicensed versions of their software into paying customers. For this reason, once the investigation is completed and claims are discussed, settlement options are discussed as well. This might include purchasing software, paying a settlement, or negotiating a license based on the limited past use of the software.

            The “no settlement” option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download. Because Siemens Industry Software Inc. software is expensive (costs can range from a few thousand dollars to over thirty thousand dollars), there is no reason to negotiate a settlement if the accused John Doe Defendant did not download or use the software. Rather, the alternative is to provide proof that the John Doe Defendant is not the individual Siemens Industry Software is looking for (it is difficult to prove a negative, but it is doable), or to help Siemens Industry Software Inc. come to the realization that the actual software user is the engineer next door running his business from his home.

            Obviously if neither side can agree on anything, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

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

            STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.

            Many accused defendants installed the software for educational purposes — to ‘tinker’ with the softare, to learn the software, or to become conversant with the software. While the intention of the unlicensed use is noble (e.g., that user would later be working with a licensed version of the software at their workplace or in their business), for the moment, there was folly in their initial use of the software. This is our goal — to have these specifics be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Siemens Industry Software Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

            STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. NEGOTIATE A SOFTWARE LICENSE IF NEEDED OR REQUIRED.

            These are two separate steps. The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of Texas contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable. The software license also is full of nuances and words that requires an attorney who knows what terms mean in software licenses (because certain words have meanings in the context of a software license which are contrary to the plain meaning of the word), and who is forceful enough to be willing to argue for terms or clauses which protect the client’s rights. Lastly, the software license should provide the accused John Doe Defendant the right to use the software in the way the accused defendant wants or needs to use the software in the future. It makes no sense to negotiate a limited software license to cover only past use when the defendant is an engineer and will be needing to use the software again in the future.

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

            STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

            This is self explanatory. Siemens Industry Software Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

            STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.

            Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

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

            The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit, the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

            Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

            In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.

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

            LEVERAGE:

            ONE LAST THING — I wanted to discuss LEVERAGE. A copyright infringement lawsuit is in federal court, which means that out-of-state attorneys may attempt to solicit clients to engage in settlement negotiations only. However, with a client as serious as Siemens Industry Software Inc., especially with the financial backing of the corporation and the millions of dollars they can pour into their lawsuits, it is probably a good idea to retain an attorney who can step foot into the courtroom if something goes wrong (and things DO go wrong). The Siemens Industry Software Inc. attorneys at Reed Smith LLP can recognize an out-of-state attorney who has little leverage to negotiate versus an in-state attorney who is willing to pull the settlement off of the table and proceed with defending the case if the plaintiff is not being cooperative in resolving the claims against the client. In short, an attorney with leverage will get a better result for his client as compared to an out-of-state attorney without leverage.

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

            —
            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.

              Skip to content