AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135

Filing 24

ORDER granting voluntary dismissal in part, wihtout prejudice; terminating IP 24.7.48.145 and IP 98.234.187.192; terminating 18 MOTION to Quash filed by IP 98.234.187.192, and 17 MOTION to Quash filed by IP 24.7.48.145. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 10/4/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) DOES 1-135, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________) 17 No. C-11-03336 LHK NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES; [PROPOSED] ORDER NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES 18 19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), 20 21 Plaintiff voluntary dismisses all claims without prejudice brought in this action against a single 22 anonymous Doe Defendant associated with the following Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses: 23 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192. As noted on Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Complaint, these IP addresses 24 were issued by Comcast Cable Communications, and Doe Defendant was personally observed by 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s agents using these IP addresses in this particular swarm in this case unlawfully infringing Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in April and June of 2011.1 Further, from other information gained 1 This of course, is not the only times this Doe Defendant was in the swarm, but rather the only times personally observed and his or her available information captured by Plaintiff’s agents’ proprietary technology. 1 from Plaintiff’s agents’ proprietary technology and general research, this Doe Defendant appears to 2 have not only infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, but also used another IP address to 3 4 5 6 infringe upon the works of separate and distinct copyright holder in different case in the Northern District of California. (See Pacific Century International Ltd v. Does 1-129, Case No. 11-CV-03681, ECF No. 14). Considering the volatile nature of this District, and in light of the egregious 7 infringements committed by this serial pirate, Plaintiff hereby chooses to dismisses Doe Defendant 8 associated with IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192 without prejudice to pursue that 9 individual together with the other harmed party in a consolidated lawsuit focus on this single lawsuit 10 and his or her multiple IP addresses. 11 In light of the above, two (2) motions pending in this case – Motion of Nonparty to Quash or 12 13 Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 17) and Motion of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 14 18) – that are associated with this Doe Defendant and IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192, 15 respectively, are hereby moot, and should be denied by the Court on such grounds. Likewise, 16 obviates any response from Plaintiff or a hearing on these motions. 17 18 19 20 21 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the Doe Defendant has neither filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor a motion for summary judgment. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate. Inclusive of this dismissal, Doe Defendant has hereby been dismissed from this action without prejudice, and, again, his or her 22 Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) should hereby be denied 23 as moot as their associated IP addresses are no longer part of this suit and the subpoenas are no 24 longer active. 25 // 26 27 28 // // 2 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE No. C-11-03336 LHK 1 Plaintiff still maintains claims against the other anonymous Doe Defendant(s) remaining in 2 this action, and reserves the right to name such individuals and/or serve them when in possession of 3 4 5 their identifying information in this case. Respectfully Submitted, 6 STEELE HANSMEIER PLLC, 7 8 DATED: September 29, 2011 9 By: ____/s/ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq._______ 10 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 [PROPOSED] ORDER In light of the above, Doe Defendant associated with IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 17 18 98.234.197.192 are hereby DISMISSED from this case without prejudice, and, therefore are no 19 longer part of this suit. Additionally, his or her Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena 20 (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) are DENIED as the issues raised therein are now MOOT. 21 Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff serve copies of this Order onto the relevant ISPs. 22 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 17 and 18. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: __October 4, 2011__ _______________________________ Lucy H. Koh United States District Court Judge 3 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE No. C-11-03336 LHK

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?