RIAA retreats from Houston case
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- “SANCTIONS, RULE 11 – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support” ~ ‘Lectric Law Library
In UMG Recordings v Lanzoni, the RIAA has voluntarily dismissed its case with prejudice after being served with a Rule 11 motion, says Recording Industry vs The People, going on:
The defendant didn’t file Rule 11 with the Court because the RIAA yanked its case before to the 21-day “safe harbor” period ran out, it says.
Among other things, the Rule 11 motion cited and discussed RIAA tactics in Debbie Foster and Tanya Andersen cases, “arguing that the attorneys fee awards in those cases have failed to achieve the desired deterrent effect, and that the more forceful remedy of Rule 11 sanctions is now needed,” states RIvTP, adding:
The defendant’s objections to the RIAA’s discovery notices invoked the words of Judge Gertner in the June 17, 2008, Conference Transcript, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, where she stated to the RIAA lawyers: “the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it’s terribly critical that you stop it….”
Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA withdraws Houston case after being served with Rule 11 sanctions motion in UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, March 25, 2009
Debbie Foster – Pay up! Dawnell Leadbetter tells RIAA. Again., March 12, 2009
Tanya Andersen – Tanya Andersen awarded $108,000, May 15, 2009
basically bankrupting people – Stop `bankrupting` pro se defendants, RIAA told, October 28, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hi
I do not understand the meaning of this. Does it mean that UMG will have to pay Lanzony attorney fees or any such thing? Or did they walk scott free like they usually do?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It means they don’t have to pay anything.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
… but it also means for sure that they can NOT sue her again since this time the dismissal was WITH prejudice.
And this little word “with” is something we have seen rarely in the past when evil4 has thrown in the towel.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“It means they donât have to pay anything.”
That’s not fair. the RIAA should pay and should pay dearly!
April 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The defendant Lanzoni did not have to pay her legal fees. The case was handled pro bono.