Slashdot Mirror
RIAA v. Santangelo Default Judgment Vacated
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It was reported last week that at the July 13th status conference in Elektra v. Santangelo II, the default judgment taken by the RIAA against Patti Santangelo's daughter, Michelle, was vacated by Judge Stephen C. Robinson. This has now been confirmed in papers filed by the RIAA's lawyers in which they indicated that the Judge vacated the default judgment because he prefers cases to be decided on their merits, rather than by default (pdf). The papers sought $513 in attorneys fees for (a) procuring the default judgment and (b) preparing judgment enforcement documents. Patti Santangelo is the first RIAA defendant known to have moved to dismiss the RIAA complaint. After two years of litigation, the RIAA dropped its case against Patti Santangelo, leaving open only the question of whether the RIAA will be ordered to pay her attorneys fees."
What does this actually mean?
Seriously!What's a default judgment, why is it being vacated, and how does this impact the case against Santagelo?
Well, let's see.... if they don't have to cover her attorney fees, then this sets a nice example for future RIAA frivolous lawsuits. They'll learn they can file a lawsuit against someone, draw out the legal process and rack up attorney fees on both sides (small pennies for RIAA, huge huge cost to your average middle-class citizen). Then they can drop the case, and they know they've already cost the person hundreds or thousands of dollars. Somehow I feel that this kind of behaviour should NOT be tolerated for the slightest moment. We all know that's what the RIAA is doing, too..
IANAL etc, etc. But as far as I remember, the RIAA tactics were:
The plaintiffs never had a chance to defend themselves. The judge apparently found these proceedings not entirely agreeable.
...since it was such a simple and straightforward case: If it was simple, shouldn't it be reflected in the number of hours rather than cost per hour?
...since it was such a simple and straightforward case: If it was so simple to disprove, shouldn't the people who brought it be detered from bringing extranous lawsuits?
It's like medicine; a neurosurgeon can charge more for his or her time than a general practitioner can. In law certain cases require specialized knowledge and experience (well, unless you want to lose). Representing someone in a slip and fall case is different than managing a $2 billion class action securities case, for example.
You can have a simple and straightforward case where there's no way to know for sure who the victor is going to be. If it all comes down to an iffy question (like was a stop sign visible or not), the case is simple but either side might have had a legitimate, non-frivolous claim.