Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 1of30 Page ID #:3135 , ORIGINAL wo Oo NHN DH UH FF Ww NY _ Fee. Coc > MAY 17 2013 CIS THIGT OF CALIFORNIA| DEPUTY John Steele i 1111 Lincoln Rd Ste. 400 ; Miami Beach, FL 33139 : Telephone: (708) 689-8131 johnisteele@gmail.com : In Propria Persona 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, II Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian JOHN DOE, Defendant. JOHN STEELE’S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT L NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:3136 | NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that John Steele 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 Lincoln Rd Ste. 400 iami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (708) 689-8131 johnisteele@gmail.com Jn Propria Persona TICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT ~ CASE NO, 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page.3 of 30 Page ID #:3137 — oOo Oo HN DH UH FF WwW Ww REPRESENTATION STATEMENT. The undersigned is proceeding in propria persona. Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 3-2(b), John Steele 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: PARTIES COUNSEL OF RECORD Non-Party John Steele Plaintiff Ingenuity13, LLC and related-case Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC Non-Party Putative John Doe 3 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT John Steele 1111 Lincoln Rd Ste. 400 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (708) 689-8131 johnisteele@gmail.com Jn Propria Persona Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc. 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 Ranailo 371 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek, CA 95006 nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011 Fax: (831) 533-5703 CASE NO, 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:3138 | nick allolawoffice.com 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, 2013. oOo Ce HD DH NH FF WwW LH OTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT i CASE NO, 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Case 2:12-cv-08333- Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 6 of 30 Page ID#:3140 , EXHIBIT A Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 130 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:3141 Case|2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1of1i Page ID #:2889 1 Oo 2 3 4 5 6 id 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ISSUING SANCTIONS i" v. 7 JOHN DOE, ig Defendant. 16 “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” 7 —Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982). 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiffs! have outmaneuvered the legal system.” They’ve discovered the 20 | nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable 211] defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally 22 | downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum 23 | 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. 25 || 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-cev- 26 | 6669-ODW(Cx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662- 97 || ODWUCx) (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. 28 || filed Sept. 27, 2012). Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:3142 Cas Oo Oo HD DH NH PP HY YH Pe —- © 12 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2o0f11 Page ID #:2890 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 porn. 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. II 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; (h) 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 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:3143 Cas Oo fo WY DH HW BF Ww NH SS ee ph WwW NH KF CO 15 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3o0f11 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. Ill 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 sworn 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 Even 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 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:3144 Casa 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 4of11 Page ID #:2892 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 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:3145 Casel2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 5Sof11 Page ID #2893 1 be The Principals have hired willing attorneys, like Gibbs, to prosecute these 2|| cases. Though Gibbs is culpable for his own conduct before the Court, the Principals 311 directed his actions. In some instances, Gibbs operated within narrow parameters 4|| 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 10 || North, Isle, MN 56342). The Principals fraudulently signed the copyright assignment 11] for “Popular Demand” using Alan Cooper’s signature without his authorization, oOo Oo DH WN 12|| holding him out to be an officer of AF Holdings. Alan Cooper is not an officer of AF 13 | Holdings and has no affiliation with Plaintiffs other than his employment as a 14]| groundskeeper for Steele. There is no other person named. Alan Cooper related to AF 15] Holdings or Ingenuity 13. 16 10. The Principals ordered Gibbs to commit the following acts before this 17| Court: file copyright-infringement complaints based on a single snapshot of Internet 18 | activity; name individuals as defendants based on a statistical guess; and assert a 19 copyright assignment with a fraudulent signature. The Principals also instructed 20 | Gibbs to prosecute these lawsuits only if they remained profitable; and to dismiss 21 || them otherwise. 22 11. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their willingness to deceive not just this 23 || Court, but other courts where they have appeared. Plaintiffs’ representations about 24 || their operations, relationships, and financial interests have varied from feigned 25 || ignorance to misstatements to outright lies. But this deception was calculated so that 26 | the Court would grant Plaintiffs’ early-discovery requests, thereby allowing Plaintiffs 27|| to identify defendants and exact settlement proceeds from them. With these granted 28 | requests, Plaintiffs borrow the authority of the Court to pressure settlement. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13. Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:3146 Casel2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 6 of11 Page ID #:2894 1| B. Sanctions 2 Although the Court originally notified the parties that sanctions would be 3 | imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) and Local Rule 83-3, the 411 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. oO Oo ND NT 1. Rule 11 sanctions 10 The Court maintains that its prior analysis of Plaintiffs’ Rule 11 violations is 11 || accurate. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiffs can only show that someone, using an IP address 12] belonging to the subscriber, was seen online in a torrent swarm. But Plaintiffs did not 13 | conduct a sufficient investigation to determine whether that person actually 14|| downloaded enough data (or even anything at all) to produce a viewable video. 15 | Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the 16 || subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet 17|| access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires 13 | substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to 19 || properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video. 20 Enter Plaintiffs and their cottage-industry lawsuits. Even so, the Court is not as 21 || troubled by their lack of reasonable investigation as by their cover-up. Gibbs argued 22} that a deep inquiry was performed prior to filing. Yet these arguments are not 23 || credible and do not support Gibbs’s conclusions. Instead, Gibbs’s arguments suggest 24 || a hasty after-the-fact investigation, and a shoddy one at that. 25 For instance, Gibbs characterized Marvin Denton’s property as “a very large 26 || estate consisting of a gate for entry and multiple separate houses/structures on the 27} property.” (ECF No. 49, at 19.) He stated this to demonstrate the improbability that 28 | Denton’s Wi-Fi signal could be received by someone outside the residence. But Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:3147 ee 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:2895 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. 636 S Vanderwell Ave ‘West Covina, CA 91790 Directions Search nearby more~ apt Labs Hele, ‘Google Nap £2013 Gopgle- Terma of Une - 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 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:3148 Casel2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 8of11 Page ID #:2896 — 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. Oo won DH HD FF W NY 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 - - oO specific instances of fraud, the Court cannot make more detailed findings of fraud. re N Nevertheless, it is clear that the Principals’ enterprise relies on deception. Part — w of that ploy requires cooperation from the courts, which could only be achieved i rs through deception. In other words, if the Principals assigned the copyright to — al themselves, brought suit in their own names, and disclosed that they had the sole = a 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 — ao m~ the Court would blindly approve their early-discovery requests, thereby opening the _ Oo door to more settlement proceeds. The Principals also obfuscate other facts, especially those concerning their N NY ee 2 operations, relationships, and financial interests. The Principals’ web of iS) N disinformation is so vast that the Principals cannot keep track—their explanations of N we their operations, relationships, and financial interests constantly vary. This makes it i) is 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 N bY N SH a Plaintiffs’ obfuscation. NO oo. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:3149 Casel2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 9of1i1 Page ID #:2897 Oo oN DA UH FF W YN a NH = © John Steele Lutz = “Principal” Gibbs = In House Counsel Boy Racer, Inc “Bubble Gum Prods., LLC €P Productions, Inc. First Time AA ae Luc Future "oa Inc. I Hard Drive Prods, Inc. COMPUTER “FORENSICS” { Suntust 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. //l Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:3150 | Case |2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #2898 = Oo Oo DQ DH UH fF WH NY 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 4 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. Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:3151 Case seas ewan Document 130 Filed 05/06/13 Page 11 0f11 Page iD #:2899 _ Do Oo IN DH vA F&F Ww NY 10 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 11 Case 2:12-cv-08333-OD /-JC, Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:3152 4 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:3153 , EXHIBIT B Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 116 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156_ Filed.05/17/13 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:3154 , ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document116 Filed 04/11/13 Pagelof2 Page ID #270) 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: (3 10 424-5557 4\| Facsimile ; (310) 546-5301 5! Nicholas Ranallo (SBN 275016) 371 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek, CA 95006 || nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011 g|| Fax: (831) 533-5073 51! Attorneys for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 poe INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW(JCx) 141 Liability Company Organized Under 15] the Laws of the Federation of Saint ; : Case Assigned to: |__ Kitts and Nevis, District Judge Otis D Wright, II | Plaintiff, Discovery Referred to: 18 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian v. " Case Consolidated with Case Nos.: 2o| JOHN DOE, 2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv- 62; 2:12-cv-6668 Defendant. e a a ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 23 LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY “1S [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed,05/17/13 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:3155 , r 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 116 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:270 1 ORDER 2 On April 10, 2013, the putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW 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 |/request for leave to file a reply of no more than ten pages by Tuesday April 16, 2013 10 ||is GRANTED. u SO ORDERED. 7 : 12 Saye " 13 |}Dated: April 11, 2013 By: 14 Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge 28 52 | [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY /-JC. Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:3156 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:3157 | EXHIBIT C Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 86 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:3158 a 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page lof 3 Page ID #:2133 oO Oo HN DH HH BF WH NY | Soe Se Se Rh WwW NHN | O&O 15 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. 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 156 Filed,.05/17/13 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:3159 Oo oOo YD DH HA F&F W YN roe - Oo 12 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 2 o0f3 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 156 Filed,05/17/13 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:3160 co 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 86 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3of3 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 Oo Oo HW DH uw FF YW NW — - © 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 are. ~N 23 Y ; Wi 24 25 OTIS D. HT, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 /-JC Document 156 Filed 05/17/13 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:3161 _ Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:3162 , EXHIBIT D Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dkt. Entry 66 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 156 _Filed:05/17/13 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:3163 . Ca — Oo Oo MS DH HA FP W WN 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) Vv. JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, ORDER 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 156 Filed.05/17/13 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:3164 . Ca a Oo Om ID DH HW FF WY NY 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