RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."

Comments

Re:Sure, "Forgotten", right

[Chas]

"How are these underhanded lying scumbag tactics even legal?"

Because forum shopping isn't illegal.

And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.

HOWEVER, because of the preceeding cases, every venue they pop up in should get their case shot down again, and again, and again.

Think "whack-a-mole".

But things like neglecting to attach case history is stuff that can get these fuckers censured and possibly disbarred.

Here's hoping!

Re:Pathetic

[Holi]

You should really look up Amicus curiae.

An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.

--Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

Re:Pathetic

[m.ducharme]

I can't tell for sure, but there is some indication, if you follow the links back, that NYCL, you know, Ray Beckerman, is Counsel for the Defendants, and as such would of course have standing to address both judges. And if I'm wrong, well see my sibling post re: Amicus Curiae briefs.

Re:Dirty Pool

[ZOMFF]

IANAL (but I am dating one) and this is the response I got from her on the matter:

"Every state has a grievance board that deals with things like unethical conduct. There is one case here involving a grievance against our client (another lawyer) for overly aggressive litigation techniques specifically the service of a subpoena on children, which is not illegal, but their parents felt it was improper and intimidating. Attorneys have to have professional liability insurance as well to protect against claims of malpractice, which could be attributed to "incompetence" or willful misconduct. I know that when I worked in NYC, there was an attorney we knew who was sanctioned (and possibly disbarred) for improperly managing his escrow account. I obviously know no case law on this, but my impression is that once the judge on the new case becomes aware of the Plaintiff's lack of following proper procedure, the case will be thrown out. As far as punishing the attorneys, I am not sure if the court system would take any action other than the dismissal of the case, but certainly if the RIAA feels that its attorneys were behaving incompetently, they could sue for malpractice. My guess is that this was intentional and that the RIAA is on board, though. And a grievance can come from anyone, not just the court or another attorney. And if a grievance was filed the board would have to determine that the RIAA's counsel knowingly ignored procedure."

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi

[Alastor187]

uhm, if I recall it correctly, the failed design of tacoma bridge didn't had any legal consequences No, if you remembered correctly you would know that the bridge failed because it was vibrating in a manner never before seen. The air moving around the deck was causing an unforeseen mode of vibration, a problem that falls it the classification of Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI). FSI problems might have been better understood by aerospace engineers but had little relevance to civil engineering, at the time anyway. The civil engineers didn't "forget" anything, they just simply didn't understand the problem.

Re:Dirty Pool

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions? No it is not normal. These lawyers are at the bottom of the profession. In my book, they're outside the profession.

Re:Dirty Pool

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've hired a few over the years. Frankly, I want my lawyers ready and willing to sue their own mothers if that's what I want them to do. I regard lawyers (mine or not) as instruments of the client's will. Only the dregs of the profession are like that. You want to be represented by the dregs, be my guest. But you'll find that the real victims of those types of lawyers are ..... their clients.