Strike 3 Holdings: Judge Assigns All FLMD Cases to Single Magistrate

Share

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.

Read the order here >

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:

  1. On September 12, 2014, the paralegal at undersigned’s office in charge of calendaring deadlines and filing motions went on maternity leave.
  2. 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

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Website Apps