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

What in the world is there to sort out?

[TechForensics]

Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.

And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.

Re:Better late than never

[stephanruby]

Whatever it is. Do not make assumptions. Yes, you're probably right, but this detail still needs to be investigated by the slash mob. For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual (which is hard to believe I know, but still let's be ready for anything -- even something that's even more absurd than it usually is).

Re:Better late than never

[shawb]

You are thinking along the same lines as me...

In particular, I was thinking they may have realized something about their argument which could be used in a judgment against them. Better to forfeit now than risk a retrial which could open the doors with court precedent in a ruling against the RIAA, endangering future legal action. (Note the liberal use of indefinite articles... pure speculation)