Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154
ORIGINAL
co oOo NY BAD YU fF WY NY
AF Holdings, LLC
2100 M Strect Northwest Suite 170-417
Washington, D.C. 20037 1-888-588-9473 admin@livewireholdings.com
Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:3072
Fee gad — Aetacr cour |
bi 17 2013 | (an
i i i a GSN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN
gen
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ENGENUITY 13 LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, I Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian
AF HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT
WY;
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC, Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:3073
NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that AF Holdings, LLC hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from: (1) the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order Issuing
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.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: May 17, 2013
2100 M Street Northwest Suite 170-417
Washington, D.C. 20037 1-888-588-9473 admin@livewireholdings.com
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:3074
_
Co me HN DH DH FSF WY WN
REPRESENTATION STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule | 2(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rute 3-2(b),
AF Holdings, LLC submits this Representation Statement. The following list identifies all parties to
the action and all persons and entities affected by the orders appealed from, and it identifies their
respective counsel by name, firm, address, telephone number, and e-mail, where appropriate:
Plaintiff Ingenuity!3, LLC and related-case Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC
Non-Party Putative John Doe
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 38 Miller Avenue, Suite 263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
Morgan Pietz (SBN 260629) The Pietz Law Firm
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Facsimile: (310)546-5301
Nicholas Ranallo
371 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek; CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011 Fax: (831) 533-5703
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:3075
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
_
INGENUITY 13 LLC, Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, 1 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian
v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:
oOo Mm IY DH WH FF W NWN
I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age.
10 My business address is 2100 M Street Northwest, Ste. 170-417, Washington, D.C. 20037. [have i] caused service of: 12 AF HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
13 AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT
14 || On the following parties via U.S. Mail first-class, postage prepaid:
15 COUNSEL OF RECORD
16 I "Plaintiff Ingenuity!3, LLC and Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)
related-case Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC 38 Miller Avenue, Suite 263
7 Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900
18 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
19 Non-Party Putative John Doe Morgan Pietz (SBN 260629) The Pietz Law Firm
20 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
21 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Telephone: (310) 424-5557
22 Facsimile: (310)546-5301
23 Nicholas Ranallo 371 Dogwood Way
24 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com
25 Telephone: (831) 703-4011 F 831) 533-5703
26
27
WR
4 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:3076
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2013.
.
nature
Oo PF IN DH HW FF WY WY
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page.6 of 30 Page ID #:3077
4 + ‘ *
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:3078
EXHIBIT A Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 130
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:3079
Cas
ent
o0 7m I DD wD FF WN
10
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1of11 Page ID #:2889
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
1 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(ICx) (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. 2:12-0v-6668-ODW(Cx) (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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:3080
Casel2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2o0f11 Page ID #:2890
—
oO Oo IT DH NH F&F W ND
10
calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading pom. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.
Plaintiffs do have a right to assert their intellectual-property rights, so long as they do it right. But Plaintiffs’ filing of cases using the same boilerplate complaint against dozens of defendants raised the Court’s alert. It was when the Court realized Plaintiffs engaged their cloak of shell companies and fraud that the Court went to battlestations.
Il. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court issued its February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause re Sanctions to allow counsel, Brett Gibbs, to explain why he ignored the Court’s discovery-stay Order, filed complaints without reasonable investigation, and defrauded the Court by asserting a copyright assignment secured with a stolen identity. (ECF No. 48.) As evidence materialized, it turned out that Gibbs was just a redshirt.
Gibbs’s behavior in the porno-trolling collective was controlled by several attorneys, under whom other individuals also took their orders. Because it was conceivable that these attorneys (and others) were culpable for Gibbs’s conduct, the Court ordered these parties to appear.
The following additional parties were ordered to appear: (a) John Steele, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Prenda Law, Inc., and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; (b) Paul Hansmeier, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; (c) Paul Duffy, of Prenda Law, Inc.; (d) Angela Van Den Hemel, of Prenda Law, Inc.; (e) Mark Lutz, of Prenda Law, Inc., AF Holdings LLC, and/or Ingenuity 13 LLC; (f) Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC; (g) Peter Hansemeier, of 6881 Forensics, LLC; (bh) Prenda Law, Inc.; (i) Livewire Holdings LLC, (j) Steele Hansmeier PLLC; (k) AF Holdings LLC; (1) Ingenuity 13 LLC; (m) 6881 Forensics, LLC; and (n) Alan Cooper,
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:3081 ,
Cas
oo Oo NY DH UN FF W NHN
Bw WH NY NY WKY N N NN NN |] SF RPP KF Fe KF ee YS oD DH A BR wD YN KF OD OD eo NIN DH FF Ww NH KY S&S
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3ofi11 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.
Hl. 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 sworm 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 Bven 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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:3082
Case|2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 4 of11 Page ID #:2892
=
oO eo YI DH WwW FB W WN
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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:3083
Cas
Oo Oo IN DH A F&F WB N
Se oS Se Se kh WwW N FF O&O
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 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 Inre DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 550 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[TJhe 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.
I. 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 a torrent 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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:3084
Case|2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 7of11 Page ID #:2895
oo Oo ST DH NH FF WD NHN
NN NY N NY NY NY KY YY = BRR BESK FSF Gwe RABDREBH A S
Denton’s property is not a large estate; it is a small house in a closely packed
residential neighborhood. There are also no gates visible.
635 S Vanderwell Ave West Covina, CA 91790
y
Directions Search nearby more~
Mapy Labs- Help Goapie Maps 82018 Google “Tarn ot Vow «Privacy
Gibbs’s statement is a blatant lie. His statement resembles other statements given by Plaintiffs in this and their other cases: statements that sound reasonable but lack truth. Thus, the Court concludes that Gibbs, even in the face of sanctions, continued to make factual misrepresentions to the Court.
Nevertheless, Rule 11 sanctions are inappropriate here because it is the wrong sanctions vehicle at this stage of litigation. The cases have already been dismissed and monetary sanctions are not available. Fed. R. Civ. P 11(c)(5)(B) (a court cannot impose a monetary sanction on its own unless it issued the show-cause order before
voluntary dismissal). The more appropriate sanction for these Rule 11 violations is
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:3085
Case] 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 8 of11 Page ID #:2896
Oo Oo NY KH A FPF YW YN
Nb we YN NY NY NY KR WY NY & BeRRR BBR SSEReRAABDEBR ES
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 conceming 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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:3086
Cas
oOo Oo NY DH vA FR WY NHN
— = - ©
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 9of11 Page ID #:2897
Paul Duffy Brest Gibbs
Lutz = “Principal” Lutz = Paralegal Yat: Gibbs = In House Counsel Dugas’ wife also Counsel LAW FIRMS. °
Boy Racer, {nc
Bubble Gum Prods., LLC
_Future Biue, Inc. Hard Drive Prods, inc.
COMPUTER “FORENSICS” 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-attomneys 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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:3087
Case
_
o0 Oo I DO DH F&F WY N
:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:2898
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). 5 This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal.
10
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document sald Filed 05/17/13 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #: 3088
Case
Co om AIDA n FF YW NY
a Ne
13
:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 11of11 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. GHT, II UNITED STATES
Case 2:12-cv-08333-O0
Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:3089
+
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:3090 |
EXHIBIT B Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 116
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:3091
ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document116 Filed 04/11/13 Page lof2 Page!D #270p
Morgan E. Pietz (SBN 260629) THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Facsimile: (310) 546-5301
Nicholas Ranallo (SBN 275016) 371 Dogwood Way
Boulder Creek, CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011 Fax: (831) 533-5073
Attorneys for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW(JCx) Liability Company Organized Under
the Laws of the Federation of Saint
: : Case Assigned to: Kitts and Nevis, District Judge Otis D Wright, II Plaintiff, Discovery Referred to:
é Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian Case Consolidated with Case Nos.: HOEET DOE, 2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv- 6662; 2:12-cv-6668
Defendant. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A REPLY
A [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY
Case iui linia Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:3092
4
se 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 116 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2of2 Page ID #:270
ORDER
On April 10, 2013, the putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW by and through counsel, requested leave to file a brief reply, of no more than 10 pages, by Tuesday April 16, 2013, in response to the new information contained in the three Responses to the Order to Show Cause filed by counsel for Paul Duffy, Prenda Law, Inc., and Angela Van Den Hemel (ECF No. 108); for Paul Hansemeier (ECF No. 109); and for John Steele (ECF No. 110).
For good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the putative defendant’s request for leave to file a reply of no more than ten pages by Tuesday April 16, 2013
is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. NN ;
Dated: April 11, 2013 By: Hon. Otis D. Wright, I United States District Judge
258 +| [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY
cument 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:3093
*
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:3094
EXHIBIT C Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 86
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:3095
cad 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2133
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 10 | INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. is JOHN DOE, . Defendant. 15 The Court has received the Ex Parte Application filed on behalf of John Steele,
16 || Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Angela Van Den Hemel, requesting the Court to 17 | withdraw its March 5, 2013 Order requiring their attendance on March 11, 2013.
18 Based on the papers filed and the evidence presented during the March 11, 2013 19 | hearing, the Court concludes there is at least specific jurisdiction over these persons 20 || because of their pecuniary interest and active, albeit clandestine participation in these 21 || cases. Not only does the Ex Parte Application lack merit, its eleventh-hour filing 22 || exemplifies gamesmanship. Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED.
23 The March 11, 2013 hearing raised questions concerning acts performed by 24 | other persons related to Prenda Law, Inc., Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Livewire Holdings 25 || LLC, AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and 6881 Forensics, LLC. The evidence 26 || presented suggests these persons may be culpable for the sanctionable conduct 27] explained in the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause, which the Court 28 || previously attributed to Brett Gibbs only. Further, it appears that these persons, and
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:3096
Cagp 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2134
Oo Om HI DB HW BP Ww NY
ee - ©
12
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)
f) g) h) i) )
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 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:3097
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3of3 Page ID #:2135
1 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
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.
i0 Gibbs is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the persons and entities in
2 3 4 5 6 their involvement as “senior attorneys” in the cases; and 7 8 9
11 || subparagraphs a—-m above by March 15, 2013, and must file proofs of service with the 12 || Court by March 18, 2013. Gibbs is further ORDERED to appear on March 29, 2013, 13 || at 10:30 a.m.
14 No other parties are required to appear on March 29, 2013. If so desired, 15 | Morgan E. Pietz and Nicholas R. Ranallo may appear on behalf of Defendant Doe.
16 Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a—m above not appear on 17|| March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their 18 | conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their 19 || failure to appear. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of 20 || sanctions.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 March 14, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Document 154 Filed 05/17/13 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:3098
+
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed.05/17/13 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:3099
EXHIBIT D Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 66
Case a12-
|
=
0 Oo DD A F&F WY WN
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 66 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1of2 Page ID #:1292
pate Document 154 Filed.05/17/13 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:3100 |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case Nos, 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. 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) John Steele, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; b) Paul Hansmeier, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC; c) Paul Duffy, of Prenda Law, Inc.; d) Angela Van Den Hemel, of Prenda Law, Inc.; e) Mark Lutz, CEO of AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC; f) Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC; g) Peter Hansemeier of 6881 Forensics, LLC; and h) Alan Cooper, of 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342.
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 154 Filed.05/17/13 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:3101 |
Cage 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 66 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1293
1 2) Brett L. Gibbs is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the 2 | persons in subparagraphs a—g above by March 7, 2013. 3 3) Morgan E. Pietz is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on 4 || the person in subparagraph h above by March 7, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2013
ee
OTIS D. ee II UNITED is. TRICT JUDGE