Dismissing problematic cases to avoid costs and potential counterclaims.2.
Presenting a charade of dismissal to cut off liability for attorneys’ fees.3.
Improperly filing suit in a forum where personal jurisdiction and venue do notexist as part of a for-profit business model.4.
Seeking relief not supported by law.5.
Seeking windfall profits as a proxy plaintiff for de minimis acts.6.
Providing false or misleading statements under oath to mitigate accrued liabilityfor its actions.7.
Engaging in unreasonable litigation tactics to coerce settlement from Mr. Hill.8.
Making unsupportable threats to coerce settlement from Mr. Hill.9.
Gaming of settlement negotiations to coerce settlement from Mr. Hill.10.
Falsely telling Mr. Hill that his health was not a factor and would not beconsidered in settlement.11.
Demanding unreasonable, onerous and unsupportable settlement demands in badfaith.12.
Continuing the suit even after is was known that Mr. Hill was mentally disabled,chronically ill and destitute.13.
Prosecuting this case under questionable standing and corresponding failure todisclose and/or join what are believed the real parties in interest, namely
The Denver Post
and/or Media News Group, Inc.
I. RIGHTHAVEN’S DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE DOES NOT FORECLOSE ANAWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Righthaven inappropriately seeks to limit a rightful award of attorney’s fees under thereasoning that it has dismissed Mr. Hill with prejudice. However, requiring payment of attorneys’ fees upon a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is entirely appropriate where, as here,one or more of the following circumstances are present: (a) exceptional circumstances justify anaward of fees in order to do justice; (b) plaintiffs’ claim[s] [are] frivolous and/or pursued in bad