Florida Judge Smacks Down RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is going to have to face the music in Tampa, Florida, and answer the charges of extortion, trespass, conspiracy, unlicensed investigation, and computer fraud and abuse that have been leveled against them there. And the judge delivered his ruling against them in in pretty unceremonious fashion — receiving their dismissal motion last night, and denying the motion this morning. The RIAA's unvarying M.O., when hit with counterclaims, is to make a motion to dismiss them. It did just that in one Tampa case, UMG v. Del Cid, but the judge upheld 5 of the 6 counterclaims. The RIAA quickly settled that one. When a new case came up in the same Tampa courthouse before the very same judge, and the same 5 counterclaims were leveled against the record companies, I opined that 'it is highly unlikely that the RIAA will make a motion to dismiss counterclaims,' since I knew they'd be risking sanctions if they did. Well I guess I underestimated the chutzpah — or the propensity for frivolous motion practice — of the RIAA lawyers, as they in essence thumbed their nose at the judge, making the dismissal motion anyway, telling District Judge Richard A. Lazzara that his earlier decision had been wrong. The judge wasted no time telling the record companies that he did not agree (PDF)."

Comments

Re:In the End, It Doesn't Matter

[Skye16]

Very much so wrong. Look at who brought the suit the first time: UMG.

The individual record companies have to sue; the RIAA just does the legwork for "finding" who "made files available" and hands it off.

Re:Pop quiz for you litigation buffs out there

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What are "Rule 11 Sanctions?" Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits "frivolous" conduct by attorneys. This was about as "frivolous" as it gets.

Re:I'm curious

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

lawyers do that kind of thing all the time I disagree. Lawyers will occasionally, and very rarely, delicately 'respectfully take exception' to a ruling or respectfully call to the judge's attention something they feel he or she might have 'overlooked', but I have never seen a brief which simply tells a judge that the decision -- which he himself decided -- was "wrongly decided". Take a look at pages 28-30 of the brief, where they tell Judge Lazzara, that his prior decision was "wrongly decided", and tell me if you've ever seen anything so insulting to a judge.