RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4000 default judgment they'd gotten against some lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an 'enforcement' proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. Today, it turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA's collection lawyer, the motion 'contained factual inaccuracies ... which plaintiff needs to sort out' (PDF). The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."

Comments

Re:Better late than never

[Walkingshark]

I think learnding is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Better late than never

[GigaplexNZ]

A lawyer with ethics...a novel concept.

Says an Anonymous Coward to everyone's favourite NewYorkCountryLawyer...

Sloppy work

[Ollabelle]

I'll wager the facts that need sorting out include which Monica Buckley got sued and where she is.

Pulling the first one from the phone books is probably not a good way to proceed.

Re:Better late than never

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual

For me the real news is that the lawyer cared that there was an error. Normally, to these people, that would not be cause for dropping a case, since they are always misrepresenting the facts. You use the word "embarrassing"; this is a foreign concept to most RIAA lawyers. The part of their brains that is capable of feeling shame appears to have been surgically removed.

Re:What I find problematic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Finding a lawyer that cares about the law might not be newsworthy, but finding one (probably accidently!) employed by the RIAA *IS* newsworthy.

Yes, I find it 'stop the presses' newsworthy.