Strike 3 Holdings: Judge Assigns All FLMD Cases to Single Magistrate
This is a blog dedicated to updates on copyright infringement cases. We’ve represented nearly 300 Strike 3 Holdings clients across the US since 2017, and are America’s most experienced BT copyright defense firm; we can represent you in your case. For more information about handling your subpoena visit our main website’s Strike 3 Holding’s page.
On April 10, 2019, Chief United States District Judge from the US District Court Middle District of Florida directed the Clerk to re-assign all individual Strike 3 Holdings cases to the magistrate judge assigned to the first-filed case in the division.
Strike 3 Holdings has been aggressively filing copyright infringement lawsuits, with over 500 cases already filed in the first quarter of 2019.
Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a company that distributes adult films through the subscription-based websites Blacked, Vixen, and Tushy.
According to fightcopyrighttroll.com, the same FLMD Judge has been hard on this type of case before with another pornographic movie company, Malibu Media LLC.
On the very same day (1/14/2015) Lipscomb filed a bunch of motions in this and other FLMD cases to extend time to serve defendants — motions very consistent with his tactics of frivolously delaying the proceeds. He argues that because his ex parte motion for discovery was granted only on 12/2/2014, ISP didn’t have time to cough up the subscriber’s information.
Judge Steven Merryday was not impressed: he noticed that the Rule 4m’s 120-day complaint-to-service period was about to expire and wanted to know why it took so long to move for discovery (around two months from the lawsuit inception). Thus, he orders to show cause in this and three other cases assigned to him:
Seventy-six days passed between the start of this action and the issuance of the plaintiff’s subpoena, and the plaintiff offers no reason for the delay. Accordingly, the plaintiff fails to offer sufficient information to determine whether the plaintiff pursued this action with due diligence.
Lipscomb responded on 1/22/2015 with a facepalm-inducing reasoning:
- On September 12, 2014, the paralegal at undersigned’s office in charge of calendaring deadlines and filing motions went on maternity leave.
- Because of the transition between office staff, Plaintiff’s Motion was unintentionally not filed with the complaint.
You get the idea. It is not easy to take this excuse seriously, isn’t it? The judge was not impressed either (even less impressed than at the time of OSC), so he denied the motions for extension and dismissed this and three other cases.
You can read their entire post about it here.
If you have received a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings, it is important to speak with an ISP Subpoena Defense specialist in order to decide the best course of action for your specific case.
Our consultations are free, and we represent clients nationwide. Visit our website or call us: 312-201-8310
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC Files 19 New Lawsuits in CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK – ISP Subpoena Defense
Strike 3 Holdings Shows No Sign of Slowing Down With April Filings
Should You File a Motion to Quash Subpoena in a Strike 3 Holdings, Malibu Media LLC, or ME2 Productions or Other Movie Case? Free Consultation With Antonelli Law Defense
About Author
JAntonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted to numerous federal courts around the country. He has been a civil litigator nearly 25 years in a broad range of actions representing corporations and individuals as plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court. Jeffrey has been interviewed by the media many times, including Bloomberg BNA, NBC, The New York Times, Chicago Lawyer, Chicago Tribune, and the longstanding lawyer’s publication Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Prior to forming Antonelli Law Ltd. in 2007 Jeffrey worked for several litigation boutiques in Chicago’s Loop as well as a full service firm. His litigation experience includes hotly contested issues in intellectual property, business, insurance, and consumer fraud. He is an adviser to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Advisory Council for Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS), and was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association Education Law Section Council from 2012-2013. Jeffrey is especially proud of his work representing hundreds of students defrauded by improperly accredited educational institutions, including as certified class counsel. Before attending law school, Jeffrey was interested first in business, and then in biomedical ethics. These interests led him to graduate from the nation’s largest philosophy department at Loyola University in Chicago, where some of his favorite (and most challenging) subjects were cognitive science and philosophy of science. During college he held positions at the University of Chicago’s Ben May Institute; as a medical assistant for a University of Chicago foot and ankle surgeon; and volunteered in the emergency room at the University of Chicago Hospitals. These experiences led to studying health law at the DePaul College of Law where Jeffrey earned his law degree and a certificate in health law. At that time DePaul’s Institute for Health Law was consistently ranked in the top 10 health law specialty programs nationwide. During law school Jeffrey immersed himself in studying the practical and public policy aspects of health care through internships at the American Medical Association in Chicago, and on Capitol Hill at the Governmental Relations Office of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC. Jeffrey has concentrated in civil litigation throughout his legal career, and is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois federal court, and all federal courts of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In addition, he is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association. Jeffrey prides himself on his strong personal ideals, passionate, ethical advocacy, and working hard to bring the best possible results for his clients. He also maintains a special interest in cases involving fraud. Whether due to good parenting, his family’s law enforcement employment, undergraduate studies in philosophy including ethics, or a fortuitous outcome of good breeding, one essence of Jeffrey’s character is a drive to root out the truth behind fraudulent practices.