ORIGINAL Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:3041 re k Ww N FILED Cli Prenda Law, Inc. =BIG.US, DISTAICT CouRT 161 N. Clark St. Ste. 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 952-6136 paduffy@wefightpiracy.com MAY | 7 2013 CENTHALDST By * : ICT OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Plaintiff, v. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, IE Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian JOHN DOE, Defendant. PRENDA LAW, INC’S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT Od | J 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cy-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:3042 —_ NOTICE OF APPEAL No NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Prenda Law, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from: (1) the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order Issuing pe w& Sanctions (ECF No. 130), attached as Exhibit A; (2) the Court’s Order Granting Request for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 116) attached as Exhibit B; (3) the Court’s March 14, 2013 Order to show cause (ECF No. 86) (amending and incorporating ECF No. 48) attached as Exhibit C; and (4) the Court’s Order to appear (ECF No. 66) attached as Exhibit D. Oo Oo SI DH Respectfully submitted, 10 || DATED: May 17, 2013 bola hf Paul Duffy 12 On Behalf of Prenda Law, Inc. 161 N. Clark St. Ste. 3200 13 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 952-6136 14 paduffy@wefightpiracy.com 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW UJCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 09/17/13 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:3043, REPRESENTATION STATEMENT 2 Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 3-2(b), 3 || Prenda Law, Inc. submits this Representation Statement. The following list identifies all parties to 4 |l the action and all persons and entities affected by the orders appealed from, and it identifies their 5 || respective counsel by name, firm, address, telephone number, and e-mail, where appropriate: 6 PARTIES COUNSEL OF RECORD ae} 7 || [Non-Party Prenda Law, Inc. Heather L. Rosing, Bar No. 183986 8 David M. Majchrzak, Bar No. 220860 Klinedinst PC 9 i‘ 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 10 Telephone: (619) 239-8131 Fax: (619) 238-8707 Il e-mail: hrosing@klinedinstlaw.com 2 e-mail: dmajchrzak@klinedinstlaw.com 13 ||| Plaintiff Ingenuity13, LLC and | Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) related-case Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC 38 Miller Avenue, Suite 263 14 Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 15 bigibbs@wefightpiracy.com 16 ||| Non-Party Putative John Doe Morgan Pietz (SBN 260629) The Pietz Law Firm 7 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 18 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Telephone: (310) 424-5557 19 Facsimile: (310)546-5301 20 Nicholas Ranallo 371 Dogwood Way 21 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com 22 Telephone: (831) 703-4011 Fax: (831) 533-5703 23 24 25 26 27 IR 3 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:3044 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, 3 CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) ri Plaintiff, v. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II 5 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian 6 JOHN DOE, 7 Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: 9 I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. 10 My business address is 161 N. Clark St. Ste. 3200, Chicago, IL 60601. I have caused service of: ll PRENDA LAW, INC’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 12 AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT 13 || On the following parties via U.S. Mail first-class, postage prepaid: 14 PARTIES COUNSEL OF RECORD 15 ||| Non-Party Prenda Law, Inc. Heather L. Rosing, Bar No. 183986 David M. Majchrzak, Bar No. 220860 16 Klinedinst PC UW 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 18 Telephone: (619) 239-8131 Fax: (619) 238-8707 19 e-mail: hrosing@klinedinstlaw.com e-mail: dmajchrzak@klinedinstlaw.com 20 Plaintiff Ingenuity13, LLC and Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 21 related-case Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC 38 Miller Avenue, Suite 263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 22 415-325-5900 a bigibbs@wefightpiracy.com Non-Party Putative John Doe Morgan Pietz (SBN 260629) 24 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 25 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com 26 Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Facsimile: (310)546-5301 27 Nicholas Ranallo IR 4 | Notice OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:3045 371 Dogwood Way 1 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com 2 Telephone: (831) 703-4011 Fax: (831) 533-5703 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 5 |) 2013. | LE. Signature 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO, 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) -ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:3046 1 Case 2:12-cv- 1 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:3047 EXHIBIT A Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 130 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC- Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:3048 Case|2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page i1of11 Page ID #:2889 oOo ND HW BF WN we = i=) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) Plaintiff, ORDER ISSUING SANCTIONS v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” —Spock, Star Trek Il: The Wrath of Khan (1982). I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ have outmaneuvered the legal system.” They’ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum ! The term “Plaintiffs” used in this order refers to AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, as well as related entities, individuals, and attorneys that collaborated in the underlying scheme fronted by AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. 2 This order concerns conduct committed in the following related cases: AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 1, 2012); AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv- 6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662- ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 27, 2012). Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:3049 Cas oO Oo YD DH UH FF Ww NY FP oe - © 12 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3of11 Page ID #:2891 of 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342. (ECF Nos. 66, 86.) These parties were ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their behind-the-scenes role in the conduct facially perpetrated by Gibbs. These parties were also ordered to explain the nature of their operations, relationships, and financial interests. Il LEGAL STANDARD The Court has a duty to supervise the conduct of attorneys appearing before it. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 301 (9th Cir. 1996). The power to punish contempt and to coerce compliance with issued orders is based on statutes and the Court’s inherent authority. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994). Though this power must be exercised with restraint, the Court has wide latitude in fashioning appropriate sanctions to fit the conduct. See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-65 (1980). Under the Court’s inherent authority, parties and their lawyers may be sanctioned for improper conduct. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). This inherent power extends to a full range of litigation abuses, the litigant must have engaged in bad faith or willful disobedience of a court’s order. Jd. at 992. Sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority are particularly appropriate for fraud perpetrated on the court. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 54 (1991). IV. DISCUSSION A. Findings of fact Based on the evidence presented on the papers and through swom testimony, the Court finds the following facts, including those based on adverse inferences drawn from Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel’s blanket refusal to testify.’ 1. Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy (“Principals”) are attorneys with shattered law practices. Seeking easy money, they conspired to operate this enterprise and 3 ven if their refusal was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court still may draw adverse inferences against them in this civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:3050 Case|2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 4ofi11 Page ID #:2892 Co oN DW Bw N rr eo vA FB WwW NY K CO 16 formed the AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 entities (among other fungible entities) for the sole purpose of litigating copyright-infringement lawsuits. They created these entities to shield the Principals from potential liability and to give an appearance of legitimacy. 2. AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 have no assets other than several copyrights to pornographic movies. There are no official owners or officers for these two offshore entities, but the Principals are the de facto owners and officers. 3. The Principals started their copyright-enforcement crusade in about 2010, through Prenda Law, which was also owned and controlled by the Principals. Their litigation strategy consisted of monitoring BitTorrent download activity of their copyrighted pornographic movies, recording IP addresses of the computers downloading the movies, filing suit in federal court to subpoena Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) for the identity of the subscribers to these IP addresses, and sending cease-and-desist letters to the subscribers, offering to settle each copyright- infringement claim for about $4,000. 4. This nationwide strategy was highly successful because of statutory- copyright damages, the pornographic subject matter, and the high cost of litigation. Most defendants settled with the Principals, resulting in proceeds of millions of dollars due to the numerosity of defendants. These settlement funds resided in the Principals’ accounts and not in accounts belonging to AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. No taxes have been paid on this income. 5. For defendants that refused to settle, the Principals engaged in vexatious litigation designed to coerce settlement. These lawsuits were filed using boilerplate complaints based on a modicum of evidence, calculated to maximize settlement profits by minimizing costs and effort. 6. The Principals have shown little desire to proceed in these lawsuits when faced with a determined defendant. Instead of litigating, they dismiss the case. When pressed for discovery, the Principals offer only disinformation—even to the Court. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:3051, — Do Oo NY KD HW FF YW N 10 ~ 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 5of11 Page ID #:2893 % The Principals have hired willing attorneys, like Gibbs, to prosecute these cases. Though Gibbs is culpable for his own conduct before the Court, the Principals directed his actions. In some instances, Gibbs operated within narrow parameters given to him by the Principals, whom he called “senior attorneys.” 8. The Principals maintained full control over the entire copyright-litigation operation. The Principals dictated the strategy to employ in each case, ordered their hired lawyers and witnesses to provide disinformation about the cases and the nature of their operation, and possessed all financial interests in the outcome of each case. 9. The Principals stole the identity of Alan Cooper (of 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342). The Principals fraudulently signed the copyright assignment for “Popular Demand” using Alan Cooper’s signature without his authorization, holding him out to be an officer of AF Holdings. Alan Cooper is not an officer of AF Holdings and has no affiliation with Plaintiffs other than his employment as a groundskeeper for Steele. There is no other person named Alan Cooper related to AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. 10. The Principals ordered Gibbs to commit the following acts before this Court: file copyright-infringement complaints based on a single snapshot of Internet activity; name individuals as defendants based on a statistical guess; and assert a copyright assignment with a fraudulent signature. The Principals also instructed Gibbs to prosecute these lawsuits only if they remained profitable; and to dismiss them otherwise. 11. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their willingness to deceive not just this Court, but other courts where they have appeared. Plaintiffs’ representations about their operations, relationships, and financial interests have varied from feigned ignorance to misstatements to outright lies. But this deception was calculated so that the Court would grant Plaintiffs’ early-discovery requests, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to identify defendants and exact settlement proceeds from them. With these granted requests, Plaintiffs borrow the authority of the Court to pressure settlement. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:3052 Casi — 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 6of11 Page ID #:2894 B. Sanctions Although the Court originally notified the parties that sanctions would be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) and Local Rule 83-3, the Court finds it more appropriate to sanction the parties under its inherent authority. See In re DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 550 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he bankruptcy court’s failure to specify, in advance of the disciplinary proceedings, that its inherent power was a basis for those proceedings, did not serve to undercut its sanctioning authority.”). The sanctions for Plaintiffs’ misconduct are as follows. 1. Rule 11 sanctions The Court maintains that its prior analysis of Plaintiffs’ Rule 11 violations is accurate. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiffs can only show that someone, using an IP address belonging to the subscriber, was seen online in atorrent swarm. But Plaintiffs did not conduct a sufficient investigation to determine whether that person actually downloaded enough data (or even anything at all) to produce a viewable video. Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video. Enter Plaintiffs and their cottage-industry lawsuits. Even so, the Court is not as troubled by their lack of reasonable investigation as by their cover-up. Gibbs argued that a deep inquiry was performed prior to filing. Yet these arguments are not credible and do not support Gibbs’s conclusions. Instead, Gibbs’s arguments suggest a hasty after-the-fact investigation, and a shoddy one at that. For instance, Gibbs characterized Marvin Denton’s property as “a very large estate consisting of a gate for entry and multiple separate houses/structures on the property.” (ECF No. 49, at 19.) He stated this to demonstrate the improbability that Denton’s Wi-Fi signal could be received by someone outside the residence. But Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:3053 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 7 of11 Page ID #:2895 = Denton’s property is not a large estate; it is a small house in a closely packed 2|| residential neighborhood. There are also no gates visible. 3 4 5 6 | = 7 raion |! Wop : 8) | @ scum 9 10 11 Oiecons. Seach neatby. mores 12 13 tener or 14 15 16 17 18 19 E : 20 Gibbs’s statement is a blatant lie. His statement resembles other statements 21 | given by Plaintiffs in this and their other cases: statements that sound reasonable but 22 | lack truth. Thus, the Court concludes that Gibbs, even in the face of sanctions, 23 || continued to make factual misrepresentions to the Court. 24 Nevertheless, Rule 11 sanctions are inappropriate here because it is the wrong 25 || sanctions vehicle at this stage of litigation. The cases have already been dismissed 26 | and monetary sanctions are not available. Fed. R. Civ. P 11(c)(5)(B) (a court cannot 27|| impose a monetary sanction on its own unless it issued the show-cause order before 28 || voluntary dismissal). The more appropriate sanction for these Rule 11 violations is Case 2: 12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:3054 vers 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 8 ofi1 Page ID #:2896 _ Oo oY DH HAH SF WY WN 10 what the Court had already imposed: denial of requests for early discovery. (ECF No. 28.) 2. Sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority In addition to Gibbs’s misrepresentations, there is the matter of the ignored Court Order vacating early discovery. (ECF No. 28.) The evidence does not show that the Order was ignored because of miscommunication among Plaintiffs. The Order was purposely ignored—hoping that the ISPs were unaware of the vacatur and would turn over the requested subscriber information. Then there is the Alan Cooper forgery. Although a recipient of a copyright assignment need not sign the document, a forgery is still a forgery. And trying to pass that forged document by the Court smacks of fraud. Unfortunately, other than these specific instances of fraud, the Court cannot make more detailed findings of fraud. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Principals’ enterprise relies on deception. Part of that ploy requires cooperation from the courts, which could only be achieved through deception. In other words, if the Principals assigned the copyright to themselves, brought suit in their own names, and disclosed that they had the sole financial interest in the suit, a court would scrutinize their conduct from the outset. But by being less than forthcoming, they defrauded the Court. They anticipated that the Court would blindly approve their early-discovery requests, thereby opening the door to more settlement proceeds. The Principals also obfuscate other facts, especially those concerning their operations, relationships, and financial interests. The Principals’ web of disinformation is so vast that the Principals cannot keep track—their explanations of their operations, relationships, and financial interests constantly vary. This makes it difficult for the Court to make a concrete determination. Still, the Court adopts as its finding the following chart detailing Plaintiffs’ relationships. Though incomplete, this chart is about as accurate as possible given Plaintiffs’ obfuscation. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:3055 Cas Oo Oo YN DA HA fF W YH | eS oe eH © 2:12-cy-08333-ODW-JC Document130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 9of11 Page ID #:2897 PTohn Steele Paul Duffy Brett Gibbs. Lutz = “Principal” Gibbs = In House Counsel Dugas’ wife also Counsel Peter Hansemeier “Alan Cooper” ““SaltMarsh” ieee, uc ©. 's) ingenuity 13, LLC (Nevis) Arte de Oaxaca, LLC COMPUTER “FORENSECS” ! Sunlust Pictures As for Van Den Hemel, Lutz, and Hansemeier, they are not without fault even though they acted under orders from the Principals. They were not merely assimilated; they knowingly participated in this scheme, reaping the benefits when the going was good. Even so, their status as non-attorneys and non-parties severely limits the sanctions that could be levied against them. Despite these findings, the Court deems these findings insufficient to support a large monetary sanction—a seven-digit sanction adequate to deter Plaintiffs from continuing their profitable enterprise. Even if the Court enters such a sanction, it is certain that Plaintiffs will transfer out their settlement proceeds and plead paucity. Yet Plaintiffs’ bad-faith conduct supports other more fitting sanctions. {fl Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:3056 Case ee Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:2898 Oo Oo SN DH HW BP W YN i et re 2 First, an award of attorney’s fees to Defendants is appropriate. This award compensates them for expenses incurred in this vexatious lawsuit, especially for their efforts in countering and revealing the fraud perpetrated by Plaintiffs. So far, only Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo have appeared.’ Upon review, the Court finds Pietz’s expenditure of 120.5 hours at an hourly rate of $300 reasonable based on his experience, work quality, and quantity of necessary papers filed with the Court. (ECF No. 102.) Although many of these hours were spent after the case was dismissed, these hours were spent in connection with the sanction hearings—time well spent. Similarly, the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Ranallo also appear reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $40,659.86 to Doe: $36,150.00 for Pietz’s attorney’s fees; $1,950.00 for Ranallo’s attorney’s fees; $2,226.26 for Pietz’s costs; and $333.60 for Ranallo’s costs. As a punitive measure, the Court doubles this award, yielding $81,319.72.° This punitive multiplier is justified by Plaintiffs’ brazen misconduct and relentless fraud. The Principals, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, Prenda Law, and Gibbs are liable for this sum jointly and severally, and shall pay this sum within 14 days of this order. Second, there is little doubt that that Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs suffer from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming of an officer of the court. To this end, the Court will refer them to their respective state and federal bars. Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage. The Court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. The will also refer this matter to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal ‘ They appeared on behalf of the Doe Defendant in the case Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv- 8333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 27, 2012). > This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal. 10 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:3057 Case Oo Oo HN HD err Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 11o0f11 Page ID #:2899 Revenue Service and will notify all judges before whom these attorneys have pending cases. For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases. 4, Local Rule 83-3 sanctions For the same reasons stated above, the Court will refer Duffy and Gibbs to the Standing Committee on Discipline (for this District) under Local Rule 83-3. Vv. CONCLUSION Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, Prenda Law, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 shall pay, within 14 days of this order, attorney’s fees and costs totaling $81,319.72 to Doe. The Court enters additional nonmonetary sanctions in accordance with the discussion above. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 6, 2013 OTIS D. UNITED STATES GHT, i ISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:12-cv-08333-O} /-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:3058 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:3059 EXHIBIT B Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 116 Case 2:12-cy-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:3060 ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 116 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1of2 Page ID #270p 1]| Morgan E, Pietz (SBN 260629) THE PIETZ LAW FIRM 2|| 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 3!| mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Telephone: (310) 424-5557 4\\ Facsimile: (310) 546-5301 5! Nicholas Ranallo (SBN 275016) al| 371 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek, CA 95006 || nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011 g\| Fax: (831) 533-5073 9!| Attorneys for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 a INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-OD W(JCx) 141| Liability Company Organized Under 15 the Laws of the Federation of Saint . d Nevi Case Assigned to: a), SRE District Judge Otis D Wright, II a Plaintiff, Discovery Referred to: 18 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian v. Case Consolidated with Case Nos.: 20|| JOHN DOE, 2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv- 6662; 2:12-cv-6668 21 Defendant. = ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 23 LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:3061 + 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document116 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2of2 Page ID arch 1 ORDER 2 On April 10, 2013, the putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PIW by 3 ||and through counsel, requested leave to file a brief reply, of no more than 10 pages, 4 || by Tuesday April 16, 2013, in response to the new information contained in the 5 || three Responses to the Order to Show Cause filed by counsel for Paul Duffy, Prenda 6 || Law, Inc., and Angela Van Den Hemel (ECF No. 108); for Paul Hansemeier (ECF 7 ||No. 109); and for John Steele (ECF No. 110). 8 For good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the putative defendant’s 9 |jrequest for leave to file a reply of no more than ten pages by Tuesday April 16, 2013 10 ||is GRANTED. 11 SO ORDERED. a ; 12 asa : 13 ||Dated: April 11, 2013 By: 14 Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge 28 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING | REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY Case 2:12-cv-08333-O! W-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:3062 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:3063 - EXHIBIT C Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 86 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:3064 cap 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 1of3 Page ID #:2133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(ICx) Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. JOHN DOE, Defendant. The Court has received the Ex Parte Application filed on behalf of John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Angela Van Den Hemel, requesting the Court to withdraw its March 5, 2013 Order requiring their attendance on March 11, 2013. Based on the papers filed and the evidence presented during the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court concludes there is at least specific jurisdiction over these persons because of their pecuniary interest and active, albeit clandestine participation in these cases. Not only does the Ex Parte Application lack merit, its eleventh-hour filing exemplifies gamesmanship. Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED. The March 11, 2013 hearing raised questions concerning acts performed by other persons related to Prenda Law, Inc., Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Livewire Holdings LLC, AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and 6881 Forensics, LLC. The evidence presented suggests these persons may be culpable for the sanctionable conduct explained in the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause, which the Court previously attributed to Brett Gibbs only. Further, it appears that these persons, and Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:3065 Ca: — Oo Om YTD DH UH FF W WY 10 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 2o0f3 Page ID #:2134 their related entities, may have defrauded the Court through their acts and representations in these cases. Thus, the Court amends its February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 48) to include sanctions against the persons and entities in subparagraphs a—m below: a) b) c) d) e) m) John Steele, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Prenda Law, Inc., and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; Paul Hansmeier, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; Paul Duffy, of Prenda Law, Inc.; Angela Van Den Hemel, of Prenda Law, Inc.; Mark Lutz, of Prenda Law, Inc., AF Holdings LLC and/or Ingenuity 13 LLC; Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC; Peter Hansemeier, of 6881 Forensics, LLC; Prenda Law, Inc.; Livewire Holdings LLC; Steele Hansmeier PLLC; AF Holdings LLC; Ingenuity 13 LLC; and 6881 Forensics, LLC. These persons and entities are ORDERED to appear on March 29, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., TO SHOW CAUSE for the following: 1) 2) Why they should not be sanctioned for their participation, direction, and execution of the acts described in the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause; Why they should not be sanctioned for failing to notify the Court of all parties that have a financial interest in the outcome of litigation; Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:3066 _ 0 0 oS DO NH BR BW NY cub 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3o0f3 Page ID #:2135 3) | Why they should not be sanctioned for defrauding the Court by misrepresenting the nature and relationship of the individuals and entities in subparagraphs a—m above; 4) | Why John Steele and Paul Hansmeier should not be sanctioned for failing to make a pro hac vice appearance before the Court, given their involvement as “senior attorneys” in the cases; and 5) Why the individuals in subparagraphs a-g above should not be sanctioned for contravening the Court’s March 5, 2013 Order (ECF No. 66) and failing to appear on March 11, 2013. Gibbs is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the persons and entities in subparagraphs a—m above by March 15, 2013, and must file proofs of service with the Court by March 18, 2013. Gibbs is further ORDERED to appear on March 29, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. No other parties are required to appear on March 29, 2013. If so desired, Morgan E. Pietz and Nicholas R. Ranallo may appear on behalf of Defendant Doe. Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a—-m above not appear on March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their failure to appear. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 14, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE O° oO asi N /-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:3067 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:3068 EXHIBIT D Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 66 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:3069 Ca: Oo Oo HW DH WwW FP WwW HY - Oo 11 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 66 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1of2 Page ID #:1292 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) Plaintiff, ORDER v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. In light of the parties’ recent representations made in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court hereby orders the following: 1) The following persons are hereby ORDERED to appear on March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.: a) b) John Steele, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; Paul Hansmeier, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; Paul Duffy, of Prenda Law, Inc.; Angela Van Den Hemel, of Prenda Law, Inc.; Mark Lutz, CEO of AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC; Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC, Peter Hansemeier of 6881 Forensics, LLC; and Alan Cooper, of 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 153 Filed 05/17/13 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:3070 a 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 66 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2o0f2 Page ID #:1293 — 2) Brett L. Gibbs is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the persons in subparagraphs a—g above by March 7, 2013. 3) Morgan E. Pietz is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the person in subparagraph h above by March 7, 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 5, 2013 Oo Oo WD DH MH SF W WY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE