Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Supplemental Notice Regarding Cross Motions to Dismiss (Righthaven LLC v. Eiser)

Supplemental Notice Regarding Cross Motions to Dismiss (Righthaven LLC v. Eiser)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 44 |Likes:
Published by rhvictims
Case no. 2:10-cv-3075-RMG-JDA
Case no. 2:10-cv-3075-RMG-JDA

More info:

Published by: rhvictims on Jul 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Page 1 of 6UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINACHARLESTON DIVISIONRighthaven LLC,Plaintiff,v.Dana Eiser,Defendant.Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-3075-RMG-JDA
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICEREGARDING CROSSMOTIONS TO DISMISS
Defendant Dana Eiser respectfully submits this supplement to her previous 12(b)(1)motion to dismiss (Dkt. #60) and her response (Dkt. #62) to Plaintiff 
s 12(b)(6) motion todismiss certain counterclaims. The supplemental material below relates to a sanctions hearingthat occurred yesterday in Nevada and to a public statement also made yesterday by aRighthaven associate that confirms many of Defendant
s claims. This material is of extremeimportance to several arguments made by Defendant in the previously-referenced filings.Defendant respectfully requests that the Court refrain from ruling on either Defendant
s 12(b)(1)motion or Plaintiff 
s 12(b)(6) motion until a transcript of the Nevada is available and submittedto this Court, and Defendant also requests the Court consider the statement made by theRighthaven associate when making such a ruling.
July 14
,
2011 San
c
tion
s
H
e
aring in Righthav
e
n v
.
D
e
mo
c
rati
c
Und
e
rground
In June of 2011, Judge Hunt of the District of Nevada indicated his belief that Righthavenhad made intentional misrepresentations to the federal courts in all Righthaven cases. Thisstatement was made in the context of issuing an order to show cause to Righthaven threateningsanctions for the conduct. That order to show cause was part of the order dismissing
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 1 of 6
 
Page 2 of 6Righthaven
s complaint in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, already before this Court asDkt. #60-3.
1
 Yesterday, July 14, 2011, Judge Hunt conducted a hearing on the order to show cause.Judge Hunt sanctioned Righthaven and made findings that are highly relevant to this case,especially to the cross motions to dismiss now pending before the Court.
2
Judge Hunt found:1. That Righthaven is an unlicensed law firm with a contingent fee agreement masqueradingas a company.
3
 2. That Righthaven made intentional misrepresentations to the federal courts as to the natureof its client relationship and the rights it held under the copyright
assignments.
4
 3. That Righthaven
claimed that it had various exclusive rights when it knew that theability to exercise those rights were retained exclusively by [its client].
5
 4. That
The representations about the [Righthaven-client] relationship and the rights of Righthaven were misrepresentations. They were misleading.
 5. That Righthaven
s failure to disclose the true nature of its client relationship was
notnegligence.
 
1
The full citation is: Order dated 6-14-2011, Dkt. #116, Righthaven v. Democratic Underground,2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 2378186 (D. Nev. June 14, 2011)(H
UNT
, J.).
2
These findings were widely reported in media following the Righthaven cases.
3
Media covering the matter reported that when Judge Hunt began to issue his ruling, he stated:
“In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing mo
re,nor less, than a law firm
 — 
which incidental
ly I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this
state
 — 
with a contingent fee agreem
ent masquerading as a company.”
Righthaven is not a lawfirm and does not claim to be a law firm.
4
Media reports also indicated that after discussing Righthaven
s misrepresentations regarding itsclient relationships, Judge Hunt stated:
The court finds those representations are not true andthat they are intentional.
 
5
This statement and subsequent statements are as reported by other attorneys present in the Nevada courtroom.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 2 of 6
 
Page 3 of 66. That Righthaven
s intentional failure to disclose the true nature of its client relationshipwas part of a
concerted effort to hide [the client
s] role in this litigation.
 7. That
having looked at all this evidence, [the Court] finds that [Righthaven
s statements]are intentionally untrue.
 Judge Hunt issued a monetary sanction against Righthaven and further orderedRighthaven to provide certain materials to every court currently handling a Righthaven case.Specifically, Righthaven has been ordered to provide all courts with: (1) the order to show cause;(2) a complete copy of the transcript of the July 14, 2011, hearing; and (3) any written order subsequently issued by Judge Hunt connected with these matters.These findings are not only extremely important to this case, they may have an issue- preclusive effect that would prohibit Righthaven from even arguing to the contrary in this courtor any other. These findings are extremely relevant to many arguments raised by Defendant inthe 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. In addition, it is impossible to overstate the relevance of thesefindings to Defendant
s abuse of process and unfair trade practices claims.
Stat
e
m
e
nt Mad
e
by Form
e
r St
e
ph
e
n
s
M
e
dia CEO Sh
e
rman Fr
e
d
e
ri
c
k
Purely by coincidence, just hours before the hearing described above, former StephensMedia CEO Sherman Frederick made a public statement that is also extremely relevant to theforegoing matters. A bit more background information is necessary to paint the full picture of theFrederick statement.Many Righthaven targets are political speakers. In addition to the DemocraticUnderground website, Righthaven has sued a variety of political organizations. Adisproportionate number of the earlier suits were against organizations in Nevada, which makessense given Righthaven
s home base is Las Vegas and the early lawsuits are all based on
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->