Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA v. Santangelo Default Judgment Vacated

Posted by Zonk on from the fight-never-ends dept.

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."

18 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Gulp by UncleWilly · · Score: 2, Funny

    The papers sought $513 in attorneys fees...
    The papers sought $513 in attorneys green fees

    There, I fixed it

  2. layer-ease by AndyMan! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:layer-ease by Joren · · Score: 5, Informative
      Quoth Wikipedia:

      Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court. In a civil trial involving damages, a default judgment will enter the amount of damages pled in the original complaint. If proof of damages is required, the court may schedule another hearing on that issue. A defendant can have a default judgment vacated, or set aside, by filing a motion, after the judgment is entered, by showing of a proper excuse.
      --
      -- Joren
    2. Re:layer-ease by mddevice · · Score: 4, Informative

      A default judgement is awarded when a defendant fails to respond or show up in court. To vacate is to basically cancel the judgement and give the defendant another chance. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's the basic idea.

    3. Re:layer-ease by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      A cross between Santa and a Tangelo?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  3. IANAL, but the legalese translation is: by Jadware · · Score: 2, Informative

    Her attorney's didn't enter a plea (or something to that effect), RIAA 'won' by default, and now the judge nullified that default behavior.

  4. Shoudn't really be any question by necro2607 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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..

    1. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not really if you are middle class then you can easily afford legal insurance. that $45.00 a month I pay covers a lot of things with good lawyers all over the country. Middle class can easily afford this, Hell I blow $45.00 on lunch at times. Middle class is $55,000.00 to $170,000.00 so you have a crapload of cash so even if you have to go to court you can easily afford to drop $4500.00 on a lawyer if you needed to, sure that means the disney trip is out this Christmas but not the end of the world.

      What it screws with is the poor. Poor cant afford $45.00 a month for legal insurance so they have to pay the big lawyers fees.

      That is what they target, they target the poor. i have yet to see one middle class or rich person targeted by the RIAA because they know that those people have the means to fight back.

      RIAA target the lower class, fake middle class, and the poor. Fake middle class are those that dont own anything but get credit up the wazoo to look like they are middle class, no they cant afford another $45.00 a month as they are already paying minimums to all their credit accounts... Yes there are lots of those out there sadly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.araggroup.com/ is what I use. It's awesome and Has paid 100% for a divorce, a lawsuit against a business on the east cost that sent me a box of junk instead of what I paid for, as well as other smaller legal issues like getting me off of a traffic ticket that was going to be expensive.

      you have a premium you pay and a "copay" depending on the problem, you may have a max and then pay afterwards but most of the time it covers a bulk of the lawsuit. (after X $$$ they cover 80%)

      or type in google

      "legal insurance" to get a bigger list.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by Dambiel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that $45/month is a steal to have what amounts to a lawyer on retainer, especially if you have considerable assets to protect.

      But, the middle class earning $55k to $170k? That seems high. Earning $170k puts you around the 95th percentile for household income, squarely in the upper class. $55k is about the 60th percentile, and I'm sure you don't mean to say that 60% of the U.S. is poor.

      Households in the middle quintile have incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_ the_United_States)

    4. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But this is for the whole US, and buying power varies greatly. $170K in Kansas and $170K in NYC are very, very different. Especially when you start considering that progressive taxes further reduce the $170K vs. $55K, and that higher cost of living areas (NYC, SoCal, Chicago, etc.) often have higher taxes to go along with the higher cost of living.

      The problem is that grouping the whole US ignores the cost of living in each area.

      For comparison: In Houston, teachers make about $42K to start in most of the districts. A 2000 sq. ft. starter home in the 'burbs runs about $130K. Last time I checked, several California districts were paying $70K to start, but the median home in CA is $550K. This is on top of the higher total cost of living (food, gasoline, taxes, etc.) It is no trouble to get on the property ladder with $55K in some parts of the country, and virtually impossible in others. $170K might seem to be pushing the definition, but it would definitely fall squarely in the middle class in some places.

    5. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by nagora · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It may seem unfair at times, but it's better than the alternatives.

      Err.. No, it isn't. At least, unrestrained capitalism (which is as based on fairytale notions as communism) is not better than the alternative forms of capitalism.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    6. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had this for tickets once in the early 90s. Not that exact company but the lawyer that showed up for me plead me guilty and got the judge to waive court costs. The idea was to keep the points off my license, not skip court costs, I could have done that by just paying the ticket.

      So I guess my point is, Look around at see what others say about it too. Get some recommendations and endorsements if you can that aren't linked to from their site. I dunno if what happened to me was because of something I did or what but I wasn't happy with it. Especially since I had payed $30 or so a month on it for a little over two years before it happened.

    7. Re:Shoudn't really be any question by griblik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck me. I knew the US was litigious, but you guys actually have personal legal insurance? Holy shit.

      Have you guys ever considered that your legal system may be broken if normal people have to pay $500/year just in case someone sues them?

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
  5. RIAA tactics by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL etc, etc. But as far as I remember, the RIAA tactics were:

    1. Screenshot of IP address
    2. Open case against John Doe
    3. Get summary judgement, declaring the plaintiff guilty - obviously in his/her absence, so by default
    4. Determine identity of the 'John Doe'
    5. Pressure into hefty payments

    The plaintiffs never had a chance to defend themselves. The judge apparently found these proceedings not entirely agreeable.

  6. $375/hour by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Mr. Gabriel contended that the $225/hour asked by the Defendant's lawyer in Capital v Foster was far too high. Especially since it was such a simple and straightforward case. Yet he bills nearly twice that amount to other Defendants.

    Shouldn't it be "reasonable" that attorney's fees on both sides of the case be billable at the same cost/hour?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:$375/hour by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...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?

      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.

      ...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?

      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.

  7. As an attorney by hawk · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm skeptical.

    When I was in general practice, I got pitched by these things all the time, and never found one that was worth *my* end of things. I'm not denying that one could be made, but every one I saw had unbelievably low rates for what I would be paid--to the point that it didn't cover my overhead costs!

    OTOH, the $45/month is higher than the premiums I used to see, so maybe it can cover a bit more.

    hawk, esq