Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Anderson

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 21, 2017

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
DANIEL ANDERSON, an individual; MORTON CAMPBELL, an individual; KELLI HOFFMAN, an individual; TEGAN LEWIS, an individual; ZOE SEPHOS, an individual; DERRICK SULLIVAN, an individual; ANASTACIOS THEOLOGITIS, an individual; KENNY YANG, an individual; and JOHN AND JANE DOES. Defendants

          HAMRICK & EVANS LLP, CHARLES C. RAINEY, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiff



         COMES NOW, Plaintiff CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“PLAINTIFF”), by and through its counsel, Charles Rainey, Esq. of Hamrick & Evans LLP, and hereby moves this court for an extension of time to serve those Defendants herein that have yet to be served. This motion is based upon the memorandum of points and authorities attached hereto, the pleadings and papers on file, and any arguments to be had at any hearing of this matter, if the court so requires any hearing.



         Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant it an extension of ninety (90) days to serve the remaining un-served Defendants in the present case. As demonstrated below, good cause exists for the extension of the deadline to serve the Defendants herein. Each of the remaining un-served defendants should be well aware of the present case, having received multiple notices of the present action. None of the Defendants would suffer any undue prejudice as a result of this Court's extension of the deadline for service. Meanwhile, a dismissal of any one or more of the Defendants would unduly prejudice the Plaintiff.

         When this case was first filed, the Plaintiff only knew the Defendants by their respective IP addresses. Only after filing this action and moving the court for the right to conduct limited discovery, was the Plaintiff finally able to learn the Defendants' true identities. Then, upon learning the true identities of the Defendants, the Plaintiff attempted in earnest to provide each Defendant with ample opportunity to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. In a typical case, this negotiation and fact-finding process would have occurred prior to the case's filing. However, due to the logistics of Internet piracy cases, such as the one at hand, this negotiation and investigative process must occur AFTER the case is filed and often continue beyond the filing of the amended complaint and even beyond the service deadlines.

         Plaintiff has diligently pursued its rights in this case. However, the time limitations imposed by FRCP 4(m) are unfortunately too narrow to: (i) allow the Plaintiff sufficient time to satisfy all applicable legal requirements related to its action, (ii) afford the Defendants reasonable time to resolve the pending dispute, and also (iii) timely serve the Defendants with the amended complaint. As such, Plaintiff contends good cause exists to extend the deadline for service in this matter.


         Plaintiff filed the present action on August 18, 2016. At that time, Plaintiff only knew the Defendants by their IP Addresses. Accordingly, on the same day the Plaintiff filed its Complaint, Plaintiff immediately moved ex parte to open discovery for the limited purpose of identifying each of the Defendants by their true names. The Court granted the Plaintiff's ex parte motion on August 23, 2016. Then, pursuant to this Court's order, Plaintiff immediately, within 24 hours of receiving the Court's order, served a subpoena upon the Defendants' Internet Service Provider, seeking the names and addresses of the individual Internet subscribers responsible for the subject IP Addresses.

         On September 30, 2016, the Defendants' ISP provided Plaintiff's counsel with the names and addresses of the individual subscribers for each account associated with the Defendant IP Addresses. Plaintiff promptly dispatched a demand letter to each and every individual Internet subscriber, affording each the opportunity to settle the present case prior to being individually named as Defendants in an amended complaint. In the original demand letter, the Plaintiff included a copy of the filed complaint and expressly imposed upon each Defendant a responsive deadline of two weeks. For those Defendants who failed to timely respond to the first demand letter, the Plaintiff issued a second demand letter, again affording each Defendant an additional two weeks to respond.

         On November 21, 2016, only after several Defendants had ignored the multiple demands and others had outright refused to make any attempt at a settlement, the Plaintiff amended the complaint on file to identify each Defendant by name. Within one week after filing the amended complaint, the Plaintiff issued yet another round of letters to the Defendants, this time including a copy of the amended complaint. The Plaintiff also promptly ordered its process server, AM:PM Legal Solutions, to effectuate personal service upon each of the named defendants.

         In the ensuing weeks, the Plaintiff engaged in further negotiations with certain Defendants, in some cases settling its claims with such Defendants and dismissing those Defendants from the action. In other instances, the Plaintiff elected to dismiss Defendants it determined to be no longer residing at the subject residence or who were otherwise not servable.

         As of the date of the present motion, each of the remaining un-served Defendants has received multiple notices of the present action, should be fully aware of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.