Thursday, July 19, 2007

Default Judgment against Michelle Santangelo vacated; RIAA seeks $513 in attorneys' fees

According to court papers filed by the RIAA in Elektra v. Santangelo II, the default judgment it had taken against Michelle Santangelo was vacated by the Court at the July 13th status conference. Recording Industry vs. The People has not yet seen an order embodying that ruling.

In the court papers, the RIAA seeks to be reimbursed for $513 in attorneys fees incurred in (a) procuring the default judgment, and (b) preparing for post-judgment enforcement.

The papers indicate that Richard L. Gabriel's hourly billing rate is $375.

Update:

Subsequent to the publication of this post, we obtained a copy of the Court's docket sheet entry recording the Court's vacatur of the default judgment.


July 18, 2007, Declaration of Richard L. Gabriel*
Minute entry for July 13, 2007, conference, vacating default judgment*

*Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet (July 13th story on vacatur of judgment)
p2pnet (July 19th story on Richard L. Gabriel attorneys fees)
Slashdot
E-Pressen



Digg!



Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

7 comments:

Marc W. Bourgeois said...

It seems Mr. Gabriel commands quite a bit more than was ruled fair for Ms. Barringer-Thomson in Capitol v. Foster. It seems quite disingenuous to argue about someone's rates when you yourself charge over double.

Alter_Fritz said...

with all due respect but I'm wondering why a guy like "RIAA-Richard". that made numerous errors in previous filings and in other cases, a guy that needed to ask numerous times for extension of deadlines to answer stuff because he claimed he was so buisy to prepare the stuff and who is the F├╝hreranwalt (lead counsel translation?) for the Labels of which Judge West said that those Counsels claimed stuff that was "not true";
why such a guy should be worth $375 per hour while counsel on the opposite side would only be worth $175 in case of Ms. Foster?!

And a simple paralegal for the "boilerplates"-using label counsel claims to be worth $150?
They must be either kidding or being very smart if they managed to get such fees from their clients the labels!

Santangelos shouldn't have to be liable for such IMO disapropriate fee demands.

(Serious question)
Isn't it the personal problem of the plaintiffs that they want to state under oath if defendant is a member of active military service? Why should defaulting defendant be responsible for costs plaintiffs have to ask some databases when plaintiffs for example simply could ask defendant itself if they want to state something under oath? (Serious question end)
It isn't that plaintiffs give such a damn about stating something under oath or penalty of perjury anyway, as it was found before that what they state in their papers is not true even if they do so under one of the beforementioned conditions!

Schwammo said...

How common is a motion like this? If I were defense counsel could I oppose the motion on grounds that I would be seeking fees and costs following the trial, settlement, or more likely, outright dismissal by the plaintiff when they realize they don't have a case?

Ray Beckerman said...

Schwammo said...

How common is a motion like this?


Like everything else the RIAA lawyers do, it's quite uncommon.

Ray Beckerman said...

Marc W. Bourgeois said...

It seems Mr. Gabriel commands quite a bit more than was ruled fair for Ms. Barringer-Thomson in Capitol v. Foster. It seems quite disingenuous to argue about someone's rates when you yourself charge over double.


The RIAA's lawyers disingenuous? How could you possibly think that?

Ray Beckerman said...

Alter_Fritz, I missed you. What were you, on vacation? If so, please check with me first next time. We can't just have you leave us in the lurch like that.

Ray Beckerman said...

It's a requirement, in getting a default judgment, to investigate and get an affidavit that the defendant is not in military service.

The real question is why did the RIAA get a default judgment in the first place, when Michelle was represented by counsel, and her counsel had entered into a discovery schedule on her behalf???