Lalchandani Simon obtains dismissal of 27 federal mass copyright troll lawsuits targeting thousands of 'Doe defendants'

(PR NewsChannel) / April 6, 2012 / MIAMI

Based on a motion to dismiss filed by Lalchandani Simon, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed 27 separate “copyright troll” lawsuits – against thousands of Doe defendants. The court concluded that, based on facts brought to light by Lalchandani Simon, the plaintiffs’ counsel acted inappropriately and therefore the sanction of dismissal was appropriate.

The past year has seen a tremendous increase in mass copyright cases filed by adult film companies (often called “copyright trolls”) against thousands of nameless “Doe defendants.” Defendants learn that a copyright troll has targeted them when they receive a subpoena notice from their Internet service provider (“ISP”) requesting their personal information. These cases are often used in an attempt to force settlement payments out of potentially innocent defendants identified only by their IP addresses. Unfortunately, many of these cases settle because defendants are fearful or embarrassed at the prospect of having their actual identities linked to these pornographic downloads.

Lalchandani Simon continues to fight these improper mass copyright suits on several fronts and encourages individuals targeted by these suits to take action. To help defendants that have been named in these proceedings, Lalchandani Simon has prepared the following list of “The 5 “R’s” of Being Named in a Mass Copyright Infringement Case”:

5. Resist contacting the plaintiff in an attempt to settle. The plaintiffs engage in a complex settlement negotiation process and attempts to settle will likely cost substantial sums and fail to guaranty that the matter has been resolved.

4. Research these types of case. There is a tremendous amount of information about these cases on the Internet. Understanding the broader picture will help you to understand your situation.

3. Review the letter from your ISP (Comcast, Cox, etc.) to determine when they are required to release your information. You will have to take legal action, through an attorney, before this date.

2. Restrict your wireless access network. If you are not the person who downloaded protected materials, it is likely that someone improperly accessed your router. Take steps to close your network.

1. Retain an attorney. You will need to take action in court and you need a lawyer to do that. The law firm of Lalchandani Simon PL (www.lslawpl.com) is experienced in dealing with these cases quickly and efficiently and will take the necessary steps to ensure your information is not turned over to the plaintiff.

Individuals who have been targeted in these copyright troll lawsuits that would like to speak with an attorney regarding their legal options can call (305) 999-LAW1 or e-mail .

Examples of filed cases include the following:

Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does, Case No. 11-29024 CA 05
Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does, Case No. 11-32622 CA 05
Millenium TGA, Inc. v. John Does 1-529, Case No. 13-2011-CA-032619-0000-01
Millenium TGA, Inc. v. John Does, Case No. 2011-31922-CA-01
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Does, Case No. 2011-34345-CA-01
Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. John Does 1-313, Case No. 2011-32617-CA-01
Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-375, Case No. 4:11-cv-572
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-915, Case No.11-37821 CA 22
Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-259, Case No. 4:11-cv-570
Millennium TGA, Inc. v. John Does 1-529, Case No. 11-32619 CA 21
Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-208, Case No. 4:11-cv-00583
Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-34, Case No. 1:11-cv-23035
Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-167, Case No. 4:11-cv-00586
Nucorp Ltd. v. Does 1-246, Case No. 11-42403 CA 06
Raw Films, Ltd. v. Does 1-321, Case No. 11-42407 CA 37
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-1544, Case No. 11-24714 CA 22
NuImage v. Does 1-3932, Case No. 2:11-cv-005450-JES-SPC
Malibu Media v. Does 1-347, Case No. 12-01794 CA 13
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-414, Case No. 11-42412 CA 30
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Does, Case No. 12-05673 CA 05