From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 4, 2011
No. C-11-03336 LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)

Opinion

No. C-11-03336 LHK

10-04-2011

AF HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-135, Defendants.

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC. Attorney for Plaintiff


Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)

Steele Hansmeier PLLC.

Attorney for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO

ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff voluntary dismisses all claims without prejudice brought in this action against a single anonymous Doe Defendant associated with the following Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses: 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192. As noted on Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint, these IP addresses were issued by Comcast Cable Communications, and Doe Defendant was personally observed by Plaintiff's agents using these IP addresses in this particular swarm in this case unlawfully infringing Plaintiff's copyrighted works in April and June of 2011. Further, from other information gained from Plaintiff's agents' proprietary technology and general research, this Doe Defendant appears to have not only infringed upon Plaintiff's copyrighted works, but also used another IP address to infringe upon the works of separate and distinct copyright holder in different case in the Northern District of California. (See Pacific Century International Ltd v. Does 1-129, Case No. 11-CV-03681, ECF No. 14). Considering the volatile nature of this District, and in light of the egregious infringements committed by this serial pirate, Plaintiff hereby chooses to dismisses Doe Defendant associated with IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192 without prejudice to pursue that individual together with the other harmed party in a consolidated lawsuit focus on this single lawsuit and his or her multiple IP addresses.

This of course, is not the only times this Doe Defendant was in the swarm, but rather the only times personally observed and his or her available information captured by Plaintiff's agents' proprietary technology.

In light of the above, two (2) motions pending in this case - Motion of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 17) and Motion of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF No. 18) - that are associated with this Doe Defendant and IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192, respectively, are hereby moot, and should be denied by the Court on such grounds. Likewise, obviates any response from Plaintiff or a hearing on these motions.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the Doe Defendant has neither filed an answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, nor a motion for summary judgment. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate. Inclusive of this dismissal, Doe Defendant has hereby been dismissed from this action without prejudice, and, again, his or her Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) should hereby be denied as moot as their associated IP addresses are no longer part of this suit and the subpoenas are no longer active.

Plaintiff still maintains claims against the other anonymous Doe Defendant(s) remaining in this action, and reserves the right to name such individuals and/or serve them when in possession of their identifying information in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

STEELE HANSMEIER PLLC,

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)

Steele Hansmeier PLLC.

Attorney for Plaintiff

[PROPOSED] ORDER

In light of the above, Doe Defendant associated with IP addresses 24.7.48.145 and 98.234.197.192 are hereby DISMISSED from this case without prejudice, and, therefore are no longer part of this suit. Additionally, his or her Motions of Nonparty to Quash or Vacate Subpoena (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) are DENIED as the issues raised therein are now MOOT.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff serve copies of this Order onto the relevant ISPs.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 17 and 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lucy H. Koh

United States District Court Judge


Summaries of

AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 4, 2011
No. C-11-03336 LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)
Case details for

AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135

Case Details

Full title:AF HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-135, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Oct 4, 2011

Citations

No. C-11-03336 LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)

Citing Cases

AF Holdings LLC v. Navasca

• AF Holdings, LLC v. Does, No. C-11-03067 CW (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 19) (same). • AF Holdings, LLC v. Does,…

AF Holdings LLC v. Doe

On July 7, 2011, AF Holdings filed a complaint in this district against 135 unidentified "Doe" defendants…