The RIAA’s file-sharing lawsuit against a homeless man has run into some snags:
In Warner v. Berry, where the RIAA was suing a man who lives in a homeless shelter, the Magistrate Judge — Hon. Kevin Nathaniel Fox — recommended that the plaintiffs’ application for a default judgment be denied, and that the plaintiffs be ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. The Judge agreed that the default judgment should be denied, but chose not to sanction plaintiffs’ attorneys…
The Magistrate Judge found that “[b]y affixing the summons on April 9, 2007, the
plaintiffs demonstrated they never intended to conduct ‘a thorough address
investigation …’ because they employed the ‘affix and mail’ method of service
without exercising due diligence to effect personal service pursuant to CPLR s
308(1) and (2).” Magistrate Judge Fox concluded that Plaintiffs’ representation
to this Court to the effect that they intended to conduct an investigation to
locate Defendant’s current address implicated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) because it was
made for the improper purpose of unnecessary delay.
We can only hope that this won’t prejudice the court in the matter of Warner, Electra et al Versus Charitable Hospice for Dying, Helpless, Starving Children Who Rescue Puppies From Burning Buildings and Volunteer at the Old Folks Home.
(via Slashdot)