Copyright Case Terminated/Dismissed with prejudice

[legdoci]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

Hello Everyone,

I am/was a john doe in a copyright infringement case that stated ' A notice of
voluntary dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil
Case Terminated. Mailed notice (ntf, )'. This was in Pacer. But my attorney
states 'That case is terminated, but they still have a live claim against you
because the statute of limitations has not run. They can include you in the next
group they file. It is up to you. You can decide to terminate the negotiations
in light of the dismissal and take your chances they have forgotten you. I don't
believe they have'.

What can I do?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

Hello Everyone,

I am/was a john doe in a copyright infringement case that stated ' A notice of
voluntary dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil
Case Terminated. Mailed notice (ntf, )'. This was in Pacer. But my attorney
states 'That case is terminated, but they still have a live claim against you
because the statute of limitations has not run. They can include you in the next
group they file. It is up to you. You can decide to terminate the negotiations
in light of the dismissal and take your chances they have forgotten you. I don't
believe they have'.

What can I do?

While it sounds like this specific matter can't be filed again (dismissed with prejudice), I would suggest that you listen to your attorney. Perhaps ask why it shows as dismissed with prejudice and why he feels they can re-file.

 

[legdoci]

While it sounds like this specific matter can't be filed again (dismissed with prejudice), I would suggest that you listen to your attorney. Perhaps ask why it shows as dismissed with prejudice and why he feels they can re-file.

I most definitely will ask. I also was under the impression if a case was dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff cannot file against a defendant again.

But what if I was not subpenoed (still considered a John Doe) from the courts? Would that matter?
Also, Statue of limitations? What does that mean?


Thanks

 

[Zigner]

I most definitely will ask. I also was under the impression if a case was dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff cannot file against a defendant again.

But what if I was not subpenoed (still considered a John Doe) from the courts? Would that matter?
Also, Statue of limitations? What does that mean?


Thanks

It's statute of limitations. Since you are involved in a legal matter, I would suggest that you look up the phrase and how it may apply to you.

(I could tell you, but you will learn a lot more by researching it yourself)

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

Hello Everyone,

I am/was a john doe in a copyright infringement case that stated ' A notice of
voluntary dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil
Case Terminated. Mailed notice (ntf, )'. This was in Pacer. But my attorney
states 'That case is terminated, but they still have a live claim against you
because the statute of limitations has not run. They can include you in the next
group they file. It is up to you. You can decide to terminate the negotiations
in light of the dismissal and take your chances they have forgotten you. I don't
believe they have'.

What can I do?

Was this a pre-discovery mass-defendant John Doe infringement suit filed to obtain subpoenas on ISPs for account information, perhaps?

The statute of limitations is the time within which a suit must be filed. For copyright infringement, the statute of limitations is three years from discovery of infringement (or three years from the time the infringement should have been discovered).

 

[legdoci]

Was this a pre-discovery mass-defendant John Doe infringement suit filed to obtain subpoenas on ISPs for account information, perhaps?

The statute of limitations is the time within which a suit must be filed. For copyright infringement, the statute of limitations is three years from discovery of infringement (or three years from the time the infringement should have been discovered).

Hi Quincy,
Yes to your question, but does the statue of limitation apply if the case was dismissed with prejudice?


Hi Zigner,
I'm still a bit confused or not really understanding some of the other readings
I have found doing my research.

I'm not saying my attorney is lying or anything, just frustrating too see a statement
in Pacer showing the case has been terminated, dismissed with prejudice and being told
by attorney this case would have never been dismissed with prejudice.
The termination/Dismissed with prejudice was over 2 months ago. Not saying 2 months is very long, just....
It just doesn't make sense to me. I could see if it was Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. And if it
should have been dismissed WITHOUT prejudice, why was it not entered as such?
I wish there was a more definitve way of finding out.

Thanks

 

[quincy]

Hi Quincy,
Yes to your question, but does the statue of limitation apply if the case was dismissed with prejudice?


Hi Zigner,
I'm still a bit confused or not really understanding some of the other readings
I have found doing my research.

I'm not saying my attorney is lying or anything, just frustrating too see a statement
in Pacer showing the case has been terminated, dismissed with prejudice and being told
by attorney this case would have never been dismissed with prejudice.
The termination/Dismissed with prejudice was over 2 months ago. Not saying 2 months is very long, just....
It just doesn't make sense to me. I could see if it was Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. And if it
should have been dismissed WITHOUT prejudice, why was it not entered as such?
I wish there was a more definitve way of finding out.

Thanks

Are you being sued by Malibu Media, by any chance? Malibu Media has been actively filing copyright infringement suits in Illinois of late.

The plaintiffs in most of the mass-defendant pre-discovery suits will generally voluntarily dismiss their actions once subpoenas have been issued on ISPs and the account information for the John Doe defendants has been disclosed. Individual suits are then filed, this time against now-named defendants. Plaintiffs are allowed to voluntarily dismiss their actions, without order of the court, any time before service by the other party of an answer (see FRCP Rule 41a).

But, an action can also be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice, this dismissal coming from the court and not the plaintiff. A suit can be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to properly effect service of summons on the defendant(s) within the time allowed.

A new action can be filed on this same claim with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (if not adjudicated on its merit), and with an involuntary dismissal with prejudice** (if service was not properly effected).

In other words, you can still be sued for copyright infringement if the suit is refiled within one year after the dismissal, even if the original statute of limitations has expired.

You should make sure that the individual or entity suing you has standing to sue (has rights in the copyrighted work) and you should make sure the copyrighted work said to be infringed was registered in a timely fashion (making the copyright holder eligible for statutory damages), prior to considering any negotiation.

I hope your attorney is familiar with the history of these mass-defendant copyright infringement suits and has investigated the particular plaintiff in your action. If he is and has, good. I would rely on his advice and direction.

I also believe there might be additional factors to consider that apply in Illinois to dismissals after pre-discovery or discovery, due to the abuse of voluntary dismissals. Again, I would rely on your attorney.

Good luck.





**note: This is included in the code of civil procedure in some states

 

[legdoci]

Are you being sued by Malibu Media, by any chance? Malibu Media has been actively filing copyright infringement suits in Illinois of late.

The plaintiffs in most of the mass-defendant pre-discovery suits will generally voluntarily dismiss their actions once subpoenas have been issued on ISPs and the account information for the John Doe defendants has been disclosed. Individual suits are then filed, this time against now-named defendants. Plaintiffs are allowed to voluntarily dismiss their actions, without order of the court, any time before service by the other party of an answer (see FRCP Rule 41a).

But, an action can also be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice, this dismissal coming from the court and not the plaintiff. A suit can be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to properly effect service of summons on the defendant(s) within the time allowed.

A new action can be filed on this same claim with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (if not adjudicated on its merit) and with an involuntary dismissal with prejudice (if service was not properly effected).

In other words, you can still be sued for copyright infringement if the suit is refiled within one year after the dismissal, even if the original statute of limitations has expired.

You should make sure that the individual or entity suing you has standing to sue (has rights in the copyrighted work) and you should make sure the copyrighted work said to be infringed was registered in a timely fashion (making the copyright holder eligible for statutory damages), prior to considering any negotiation.

I hope your attorney is familiar with the history of these mass-defendant copyright infringement suits and has investigated the particular plaintiff in your action. If he is and has, good. I would rely on his advice and direction.

I also believe there might be additional factors to consider that apply in Illinois to dismissals after pre-discovery or discovery, due to the abuse of voluntary dismissals. Again, I would rely on your attorney.

Good luck.

Quincy,
No not Malibu Media

Per Pacer:
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of All Remaining Doe Defendants

Then two days later:
A notice of voluntary dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil Case Terminated. Mailed notice (ntf,

My attorney also stated I could just wait and see if the plaintiff would say anything else.
Thanks again

 

[single317dad]

Quincy,
No not Malibu Media

Per Pacer:
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of All Remaining Doe Defendants

Then two days later:
A notice of voluntary dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil Case Terminated. Mailed notice (ntf,

My attorney also stated I could just wait and see if the plaintiff would say anything else.
Thanks again

Looks to me like a typo by a clerk. What the actual order says may matter, but even that might not be that important given the information quincy provided.

 

[Zigner]

Looks to me like a typo by a clerk. What the actual order says may matter, but even that might not be that important given the information quincy provided.

I disagree. It looks to me like the "Doe" defendants were dismissed without prejudice, followed by a with prejudice dismissal of other, specific defendants.

In other words, the suit was filed against "John Infringer and Does 1-100 inclusive". Does 1-100 were dismissed without prejudice and then, 2 days later, the case itself (against John Infringer) was dismissed with prejudice. As one of the "Does", a case can be refiled against our OP.

 

[quincy]

I disagree. It looks to me like the "Doe" defendants were dismissed without prejudice, followed by a with prejudice dismissal of other, specific defendants.

In other words, the suit was filed against "John Infringer and Does 1-100 inclusive". Does 1-100 were dismissed without prejudice and then, 2 days later, the case itself (against John Infringer) was dismissed with prejudice. As one of the "Does", a case can be refiled against our OP.

That is how I am reading it too, Zigner.

I think legdoci was probably one of the John Does voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, which will allow for a suit to be filed against him again in his own state. Although this was apparently not a suit filed by Malibu Media, I do know that Malibu Media is now suing several individual John Does (identified by their IP addresses only) in Illinois and elsewhere, and many (most? all?) of these individual suits were once part of mass-defendant suits.

Once all but one of the John Does who were part of the original suit were dismissed without prejudice from the action, the suit against the remaining John Doe was dismissed WITH prejudice (there could be several reasons for this).

The DC court judges, which used to handle a lot of the mass defendant suits because the plaintiffs tended to find these judges sympathetic to their needs and goals, are not as tolerant of this type of action as they once were (especially after the well-publicized shenanigans of a few select attorneys) - not that the suit against legdoci was necessarily filed in DC. Judges throughout the country are and have been finding problems with these mass-defendant legal actions.

legdoci needs to rely on his attorney to advise him on whether to work with the plaintiff to settle by negotiating a fair amount, or whether the facts of the alleged infringement could support a good defense and, therefore, waiting for a trial might be the better move (although a trial can be an expensive gamble). The individual facts on the plaintiff, on the work infringed, on how the work was alleged to be infringed, and the amount of settlement dollars demanded all need to be carefully weighed before deciding what makes the most sense. This is where an attorney experienced with these type of suits can be important.

 

[legdoci]

That is how I am reading it too, Zigner.

I think legdoci was probably one of the John Does voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, which will allow for a suit to be filed against him again in his own state. Although this was apparently not a suit filed by Malibu Media, I do know that Malibu Media is now suing several individual John Does (identified by their IP addresses only) in Illinois and elsewhere, and many (most? all?) of these individual suits were once part of mass-defendant suits.

Once all but one of the John Does who were part of the original suit were dismissed without prejudice from the action, the suit against the remaining John Doe was dismissed WITH prejudice (there could be several reasons for this).

The DC court judges, which used to handle a lot of the mass defendant suits because the plaintiffs tended to find these judges sympathetic to their needs and goals, are not as tolerant of this type of action as they once were (especially after the well-publicized shenanigans of a few select attorneys) - not that the suit against legdoci was necessarily filed in DC. Judges throughout the country are and have been finding problems with these mass-defendant legal actions.

legdoci needs to rely on his attorney to advise him on whether to work with the plaintiff to settle by negotiating a fair amount, or whether the facts of the alleged infringement could support a good defense and, therefore, waiting for a trial might be the better move (although a trial can be an expensive gamble). The individual facts on the plaintiff, on the work infringed, on how the work was alleged to be infringed, and the amount of settlement dollars demanded all need to be carefully weighed before deciding what makes the most sense. This is where an attorney experienced with these type of suits can be important.

Everyone,

Thank you for your inputs in this matter. I appreciate you all taking the time to inform me on some of the legalities specific to my case/issue. I will confer more with my attorney as advised.

Thank you

 

[quincy]

Thank you for the thanks, legdoci. We all appreciate the appreciation.

Good luck.