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

I'm curious

[Tanman]

I'd like to see a statement by the judge or other qualified individuals detailing why they didn't get sanctioned for this (mostly for curiosity -- the legal process is obtuse and interesting). It seems like the RIAA lawyers took a big risk in submitting the same info to the same court.

Re:I'm curious

[Ungrounded Lightning]

IANAL but I'll take a guess.

The two items - ruling on the motion and imposing sanctions - though fallout from the same act by the plaintiff lawyers, are separate. I'd bet the judge issued the ruling quickly in the interest of justice, to spare the defendant additional delays and lawyer costs. Rule 11 sanctions, if the distinguished jurist decides to impose them, may be along later.

Given that there was a change in one of the counterclaims and an extra pleading by the RIAA, perhaps the judge doesn't think the motion was TOTALLY out-of-line. Or perhaps, now that he's given them some more rope, he's sitting back quietly while the RIAA's lawyers continue to demonstrate a pattern of abuse of process, in case they come up with some clearer examples. Since that's one of the counterclaims, perhaps the judge thinks a better sanction than spanking them early with Rule 11 (and perhaps deter their activities in THIS trial) is to add this (and any future frivolity) to the list of misdeeds when considering the amount to award on that claim.

Wouldn't justice be better served if they have to pay the price of their bullying to the defendant? B-)

Re:I'm curious

[KutuluWare]

NYCL's optimism not withstanding, lawyers getting sanctioned for misbehavior isn't nearly as commonplace as you would hope, or as the summary would suggest. It takes a lot for a judge to decide that a lawyer's behavior was so blatently illegal that they need to be sanctioned. Overall, I think that's a good thing, otherwise lawyers may be too concerned about sanctions and potentially ignore possible legal avenues that may benefit their client. In this case, the RIAA's lawyer's supporting memorandum is pretty ballsy to flat out tell the judge he was wrong, but lawyers do that kind of thing all the time. For example, that's basically the definition of an appeal -- "Judge, you screwed up, let me show you how with sufficient evidence to change your mind." If the law firm really did, in what passes for "good faith" in civil law, believe that the judge's prior ruling was flawed, they had every right to submit a motion saying so, with evidence, which they did.

I mean, look for much crap the SCO legal team has gotten away with without so much as a slap on the wrist (yet). And look how long it took Jack Thompson to get sanctioned for acting like a blatant lunatic.

--K

Re:I'm curious

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

And it was crazy to waste the judge's time with 28 pages of repetition from the prior motion papers. If they wanted to preserve their arguments legally, they should have put in 1 sentence 'incorporating by reference' the arguments which they'd made, and which the judge had rejected, in the earlier case. What they did here was flagrantly incompetent.

Defendants not even asked!

[gnasher719]

That is fascinating. The judge got a motion from the RIAA to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims, and he didn't even bother to give the defendants a chance to reply! Instead he saved them the cost for their lawyers and rejected the RIAA's motion to dismiss without causing any work for the defendants. I just wonder how unusual that is.

Re:In the End, It Doesn't Matter

[Orange Crush]

The plantiffs in this case are "Alantic Recording Group, etc. et al" so it looks like the actual RIAA member company/companies are on the hook for this.

Will this judge get more cases?

[gnasher719]

Just wondering: Since this is Judge Lazzara's second case already, I would think that he now knows more about the subject than your average judge, so it would only make sense to let him handle whatever over similar cases come anywhere near his court. Does the judicial system work that way, giving judges similar cases where possible, or are the cases handled by a random judge?

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

[Spy der Mann]

I learned a long time ago that in the court room the judge and attorneys involved are not interested in the truth, the facts, or with dispensing justice. They are there to tell a story and put on an act to convince the jury that their side is telling a better story than the other side.

One movie that describes this perfectly, is "my cousin vinny". In the movie, Ralph Macchio of Karate Kid interprets a teenager who just happened to buy something at a store where 5 minutes later the clerk was shot.

The district attorney hired a wonderful lawyer that moved the hearts and minds of everyone. Fortunately, the kid's cousin, Vinny, the most inefficient lawyer on earth, happened to save the day by presenting the facts to the jury (and add a lot of fun with his irreverence).

One of my favorite movies, btw.