2019 Copyright Litigation Updates - Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is filing "Bill of Discovery" documents against "Unknown Infringers" in a COUNTY COURT in Miami Dade-Florida - even though it knows with 99% accuracy that, for, example, the alleged downloader lives in New York or California. Two cases we have verified have no personal contact with Florida. The Florida "Bill of Discovery" is an old County Court procedure and a local Florida Attorney is filing these cases. As we have seen, once the unmasking is done (by judge granting the releif requested which allows your ISP to disclose your name and address - unless, as an out-of-jurisidction seeks to file a motion to quash). The California law firm I deal with is Bandlow Law Firm. They have told me they believe these filings in a Florida court are proper, and that a person can quash they subpoena, or at least attempt to, if not happy. We have been informed that once the Florida attorney gets the name and address, and if it turns out the Defendant is from California, let's say, the Bandlow Law Firm is Los Angeles is likely to then handle the case and seek a settlement. The phrase we have heard when the case reaches this level is "we may file a copyright infringement action" (I suppose in Federal Court where copyright actions should be filed as federal courts have exclusive federal court jurisdiction in the first place. This all makes me wonder:
Is Strike 3 using Florida courts in order to avoid dealing with federal Courts in California, for example, where the "Cobbler Nevada" case may be presenting huge problems for them?
Will Miami-Dade County Court in Floria become the new home for Copyright Plaintiffs who are seeking to unmask alleged infringers (of books, movies, software, anything that can be filed shared on Torrents)?
Will this cause floodgate litigation?
Is Strike 3 doing this simply so they can handle more and more cases (getting stuck in federal court litigation can bog a litigator down, potentially limiting how many cases a litigator can handle)
Can this practice be challenged as a matter of law, for example, in a countersuit for abuse of process? Why are two Court's potentially needed when they admit in the "Bill of Discovery" that the issue is copyright infringement of its adult pornography films (main lines are Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen).
This video will provide some general information. The audio cuts off at the end.
To me, this is a very suspect practice that will have to be brought to the attention of the court and challenged to see if it can pass legal muster.