An update on AF Holdings in Central California
I haven’t looked at every case, just a random sampling, as usual. All of the below cases are being litigated by Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc. Additionally, these cases all have the same name: AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe.
Case No. 2:12-cv-05712
Dismissed without prejudice by Plaintiff on 12/20.
Case No. 2:12-cv-05724
Dismissed without prejudice by Plaintiff on 12/26.
Case No. 2:12-cv-06636
On 12/20, Judge Wright ordered Gibbs to show why service has not been effected within seven days or the case would be dismissed:
“ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Defendant has not been timely served. Plaintiff has 7 days to comply with this order; or if Defendant have been served, Plaintiff has 7 days to file the proof of service. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of this action.”
Gibbs responded yesterday, citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of FRCP 4(m). Gibbs additionally stated that he has found the “likely infringer”, the subscriber’s husband, and has accordingly amended the complaint.
Case No. 2:12-cv-06637
More of the same – Gibbs was ordered to show cause for lack of service, and did. In his response to the court Gibbs blames the court:
“Plaintiff’s delay in complying with the irreducible allowance of FRCP 4(m) was caused by the fact that the Court had vacated the prior early discovery orders before the ISP for this particular subscriber had responded to the subpoena. As such, it is literally impossible, even now, for Plaintiff to even begin the process of ascertaining the likely infringer in this case. Should the Court see fit to reinstate the prior early discovery order, Plaintiff will immediately begin the process of ascertaining the likely infringer in this case.”
Case No. 2:12-cv-06665
Dismissed by Plaintiff on 12/26 (I have not reviewed the dismissal).
Case No. 2:12-cv-06669
This is similar to the previous cases, where Judge Wright ordered Gibbs to show cause for lack of service. The response by Gibbs is not the same, though. Gibbs plans to file a Motion to Transfer Venue in this case, because “Plaintiff’s ongoing investigation of Defendant revealed that Defendant is, in fact, a resident of Fresno County, California.”
Case No. 2:12-cv-06670
Dismissed by Plaintiff with prejudice on 12/10.