West Coast Productions. Rule 4(m) order. To name or dismiss? Plaintiffs choose to dismiss!

On July 12th, 2011, we were all in dismay as to how Judge Kollar-Kotelly allowed the West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5,829 (1:11-cv-00057-CKK) case (in the US District Court for the District of Columbia) to stay alive, especially after imposing a hard deadline enforcing FRCP Rule 4(m) on the plaintiff attorneys which came and went with no comment, no order, essentially leaving us all wondering whether an order of hers actually was something to be taken seriously or not.

Well, today I would like to congratulate many of our clients at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC on their dismissal from the case. Up front, this is not a complete dismissal, as a number of our clients are still putative defendants in this case.

That being said, as we know, Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s latest order still stands. BY AUGUST 15TH, 2011, PLAINTIFFS MUST NAME AND SERVE (or dismiss) ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS OR ELSE THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED.

There was no indication as to why they did this today rather than in the next few weeks. My only guess (which is a weak one at best) is that when either the judge or the plaintiffs finally dismiss the case in its entirety, it might look better for the plaintiffs — in terms of preventing FRCP Rule 11 sanctions (should the court or any attorneys bring this up) for filing a frivolous lawsuit and not even naming one defendant after all these months — that the final dismissal be of just a handful of defendants rather than thousands of pages of IP addresses. That would certainly look bad.

I have attached a copy of the dismissal letter below for your viewing pleasure. To those of you who have been dismissed who are not our clients, please allow me to congratulate you on your victory.

5 thoughts on “West Coast Productions. Rule 4(m) order. To name or dismiss? Plaintiffs choose to dismiss!”

  1. Congratulations to all of the defendants who were stuck waiting for weeks with bated breath, for a decision to finally come down from on high.

    I figure I’d stop by and share this delightful tidbit with everyone. It appears that our good friend John Steele has also been caught quite haughtily copying web site content from competitor copyright settlement groups and posting them up on his own web site as his. Much in the same way Dunlapp, Grubb & Weaver did a few months back(incidentally, they did it to the same people Steele is doing it to now).

    Ah, isn’t it nice to live in a fantasy world where you can believe that things apply to everyone else, but not to you?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110728/17452215308/anti-piracy-lawyer-john-steele-caught-copying-content-other-anti-piracy-lawyer.shtml

      1. Donnicton, I just want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. If my IP address was on this document #148, then I am no longer being sued?
        I just received a letter today 8/05/11 that is dated 8/01/11, from MLG (Media Law Group,LLC) telling me I have until 8/31/11 to settle for $3500 or the client will accept no less than $4,500 and after 9/14/11 I will be named in a lawsuit.
        What’s happening!?!?

  2. Hmmm… does that sink the malicious defamation countersuit I was planning or can I still pursue it without having been named to the suit?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s