Righthaven Stops Showing Up In Court

Fluffeh writes "This story has gone from funny to sad. Following copyright-troll Righthaven's recent whipping by a judge, it now appears the company has just given up altogether. CEO Steve Gibson is working at another job (while being investigated by the Nevada Bar) and main lawyer Shawn Mangano apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court. All this has resulted in the key appeals in its cases to be dismissed 'for lack of prosecution.' Last Thursday it also had a key case closed, with prejudice, driving another nail in its already buried coffin."

Comments

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff

[KingSkippus]

The court actually dug the coffin up, drove another nail into it, and reburied it. Yes, it was a lot of work, but the point needed to be proven that badly.

Ignore the Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could ignore court orders and get on with my life. Somehow I don't think that works for people.

SCO and Righthaven merger

[Danathar]

And in other news Darl McBride has announced that SCO will be merging with Righthaven to "Leverage synergistic energies to protect our customers"

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger

[tripleevenfall]

Dear lord, what if they synergize their core competencies?

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger

[gman003]

Then they'll be able to fail *twice* as epically!

Failure, of course, being their core competency.

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger

[dkleinsc]

They'll use best practices and outside-the-box thinking to rightsize the cloud-based agile empowerment solutions with viral social messaging, of course. Do I have to think of everything around here?

Compel them to show up?

[Kylon99]

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

I mean, lodging a lawsuit against someone causes emotional harm and waste of time and money if they did it with malice. Can there be restitution with any of their cases for the injured party? Although I know it may be very hard to prove...

Re:Compel them to show up?

[JazzHarper]

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

Yes, the defendant can file a counterclaim. If they still don't show up, the defendant wins, automatically. Then, there's the little detail of collecting on the judgement, but take it one step at a time...

Re:Compel them to show up?

[fahrbot-bot]

In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sheriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement.

Like this priceless gem: A Florida Couple 'Forecloses' On Bank Of America

Over the past few years, we've heard plenty of horror stories about bungled foreclosures. The one of Warren and Maureen Nyerges, from the Naples, Fla. area, is just as bad. In 2009, they bought a home with cash, yet in 2010 Bank of America tried to foreclose on them. It took two months of phone calls and eventually court intervention to clear up the misunderstanding.

In December, a judge ordered the bank to pay the couple $2,500 in attorney fees. But months went by and the bank never cut a check. So, the Naples Daily News reports, Nyerges hired a lawyer, who pursued a levy, and this past Friday the showdown was on: The Nyergeses showed up to a local branch of Bank of America with the sheriff, the media and some movers with a truck:

"I'm either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something," the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.

... An hour later, the bank cut a check.

Re:Compel them to show up?

[triclipse]

If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the defendant does not even necessarily have to file a counterclaim to get a judgment in their favor. If the case is abandoned for lack of prosecution, the defendant can generally get a judgment for at least their costs and, depending on the type of case, for their attorneys' fees.

With a judgment in their favor, the defendant could then call the plaintiff (now judgment debtor) in for a debtor's exam. If the debtor fails to appear, that's contempt of court and generally a warrant for the debtor's arrest is issued.

Is this the end?

[Jason Levine]

With all Righthaven did, I wonder if this will simply be the end to the lawsuits. If so, this would be a really bad thing. When all is said and done, if the courts just shut down the lawsuits now, the folks behind Righthaven will have been able to sue a bunch of people and then walk away without any penalties. Sure, Righthaven will be shuttered, but there are indications that they shuttled assets elsewhere first to avoid paying debts. If the courts allow this, what's to stop any company from forming a shell company (to protect the parent), conducting a series of lawsuits, and simply dissolving the shell if things go badly? The downside here seems low and the upside (if you are successful in forcing people to settle) seems high. There needs to be a full investigation here with appropriate charges filed/fines issued to make sure other companies get the message that this is unacceptable.

Re:Is this the end?

[bmo]

It's called piercing the corporate veil, and if that happens, the principals are directly responsible for any and all judgments against the company.

It has to be pretty serious fiduciary irresponsibility, though, at the criminal level.

--
BMO

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff

[tripleevenfall]

It's like in Moby Dick, the coffin was built for someone, then that someone didn't die, then it was nailed shut and used as a bouy, then it was dragged down to the depths without any human intervention, then ironically the person did die when the coffin would have saved them, but then without any human intervention it erupted back to the surface, saved someone else's life, and then... well, was probably discarded again, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, the coffin which already was buried was exhumed, had one additional useless nail driven in, and - well, it's something to do with hamburgers or cars I'm sure.

beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary

[amoeba1911]

What seems like beating a dead horse is necessary in this case. You must continue to beat the horse even after the horse is long dead. It's like a course of antibiotics, it may seem like the infection is gone but if you stop too soon a resistant strain might come back.

And so the two most responsible people walk away..

[MetalliQaZ]

..with hardly any punishment for the thousands of dollars of losses they inflicted on their victims. Makes me sick.

"gone from funny to sad"?

[tobiasly]

This story has gone from funny to sad.

Nope. Still funny.

Re:Fuck up careers

[Just Some Guy]

I like England's "loser pays" law.

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.