RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."

NYCL FTW!

That is all.

I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain this

Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi

You would think so. But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce. If you don't believe me, look at how long Jack Thompson has been toying with the system.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi

But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce.

Well yeah. Charging a lawyer for ethics violations is like charging a wolverine for "failure to adhere to vegan principles."

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi

There really should be bad consequences for even "forgotten" things. If I build a bridge and it collapses, I'm responsible. If a lawyer ruins a person's life by forgetting to share key evidence with the defense or some other thing, they should be held accountable too.

we gotta assign people to protect NYCL

just to make sure he's safe from any shit riaa may try pulling.

now, which of you geeks want to take on this duty ?

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL

I heard they were gonna put a severed horse head in his bed, but it turns out that's copyrighted.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL

NewYorkCountryLawyer has been kidnapped by RIAA ninjas.

Are you a bad enough dude to rescue NewYorkCountryLawyer?

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL

Yes to the black suits. Not because they look cool, but because black is very slimming.

How can they get away with this

Either their lawyers are incompetent or crooks or both but this is ridiculous. What were they expecting? That nobody was going to find out? Thanks to NYCL we get a little bit of fairness in the crooked justice system. How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?

Re:How can they get away with this

Hopefully the lawyers involved will be disbarred. Probably they will not, but one can hope.

Re:How can they get away with this

How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?

I do it all the time. I have a folder under my bed labelled "Secret Lawsuits".

Not innocent enough!

When's the RIAA going to stop suing families and finally go for the homeless people? ;)

Re:Not innocent enough!

When's the RIAA going to stop suing families and finally go for the homeless people? ;)

They've done that too. [blogspot.com] They've also sued the dead, [theregister.co.uk] people who don't even own a computer, [neowin.net] and paralyzed stroke victims. [slashdot.org]

At this point...

It seems like the RIAA is throwing all the shit they can think of at the wall to see what will stick. Seems a little desperate to me.

Dirty Pool

A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?

Disbar the RIAA lawyers

Seriously, if they're gaming the system this way, they deserve to lose their licenses. This is clearly unethical and deceptive.

Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.

Jeez, that's some scummy shit.

Estoppel

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some kind of estoppel that prevents a party from dismissing a suit that isn't going well and then refiling it?

Re:Estoppel

It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.

Not a smart move

I don't think this is a smart move. Given that the first case is still active, and that the new case involves the same acts and the same defendants, can't the defense move to have the new case reassigned to the first judge and consolidated with the first case? I'd think that would be a lawyer's worst nightmare, to have tried this kind of end-run and wind up back in front of the judge you tried to evade anyway. He's sure to be none too thrilled about it, and now has a reason to crack down harder.

Double jeopardy seems unlikely...

...since there was no actual trial for the defendants in the initial case, but how is this remotely legal? IANAL, but if someone here actually is, how is it legal, procedurally, that a plaintiff is permitted to drop a claim and then immediately file an identical new one? This seems like blatant judge shopping, as it seemed possible that Judge Robinson would dismiss the charges with prejudice (so they could not be refiled), leaving precedent for dismissal of "making available" cases.

I don't understand

why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.

Subversion of Justice Workshop.

We are very proud to announce our new workshop called Subversion of Justice.

We think this is the new trend in law at this moment, and have already found 4 speakers that are more than willing to state their case.

Our thanks go to Mr Bush, Mr Thompson, An anonymous person from the Scientology church who wants to go by the nomicker of 'Tom', and one or more speakers from an organization calling themselves RIAA for being this fast in giving their assent to speak at this great event.

Please stay tuned for more details.

Re:Hang'em high. New law needed.

How does 10 years for using lawless [imdb.com] lawyers sound?

What does Lucy or any of her lawers has to do with anything?

Re:Sure, "Forgotten", right

"How are these underhanded lying scumbag tactics even legal?"

Because forum shopping isn't illegal.

And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.

HOWEVER, because of the preceeding cases, every venue they pop up in should get their case shot down again, and again, and again.

Think "whack-a-mole".

But things like neglecting to attach case history is stuff that can get these fuckers censured and possibly disbarred.

Here's hoping!