Friday, December 21, 2007

Brooklyn defendants represented by Jimmy Lathrop oppose RIAA's request for permission to file counterclaim-dismissal motion late

In four Brooklyn cases, including Warner v. Attal, in all of which the defendants are represented by Brooklyn attorney Jaime Lathrop, the defendants are opposing the RIAA's motion for permission to file time-barred counterclaim-dismissal motions.

December 21, 2007, Letter of Jaime Lathrop to Hon. David G. Trager (re RIAA request for permission for late filing of motion to dismiss counterclaims)*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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


Anonymous said...

Quite a summary of the bad actions of the RIAA Plaintiffs. And, interestingly enough, this particular court continues to force all such cases to be seen by this pair of judges. Perhaps the RIAA amuses them.


Alter_Fritz said...

"The Plaintiffs are perfectly satisfied to expend money on investigators, settlement centers, learned counsel, index numbers and processservers but if a defendant raises a counterclaim as to their tactics or practices, their appetite for litigation is suddenly slaked, as though a curtain was moved aside to allow sunlight on a vampire. Were there truly issues in controversy, Plaintiffs would seek to litigate these cases against defendants resisting these claims. Instead, these cases languish on the docket sheet, discovery endlessly delayed as Plaintiffs grapple with the onerous burden of having to deliver on their empty threats of litigation. Meanwhile, this court is overwhelmed with the backlog of default judgments which cannot be signed because Plaintiffs processservers cannot even deliver avalid affirmation of services in a format suitable for a judgment for a non-appearing defendant.

Wow, the first part of this quote is nearly really poetic (me imagine pictures of old b&w dracula films) but the second part might be more like "to cast pearls before ****" since we now know about Honorable T's idea about what is "equitable"
[me is cautious here since i don't know if this idiom counts as Rule 2 Profanity or could be seen as rule 7 violation]
Please do this for me Ray.

Anonymous said...

I hope the Judges here enforce the rule, and tell them NO.

I notice in the letter that the attorney has done research and what I have suspected all along is true, that the Plaintiffs do anything to get rid of cases where there are counterclaims filed, or is in danger of going to trial.

Plaintiffs need to learn to file only as many cases as they can handle responding to. At this point, I think that the majority of cases that are responded to will have counterclaims, especially now that we know for sure this increases the odds the Plaintiffs will agree to a more favorable settlement, or simply dismiss.

I hope 2008 becomes the year that these cases stop....