Brinkley denied these claims and rejected the settlement offer but the film company still didn\u2019t back off.<\/p>\n
\u201cPlaintiff persisted, forcing Defendant to retain counsel and incur significant attorneys\u2019 fees and costs. Yet Plaintiff had no intention of litigating its claims,\u201d Brinkley\u2019s lawyers write.<\/p>\n
\u201cRather, these filings are shameless efforts to extort inflated settlements from infringers and non-infringers alike.\u201d<\/p>\n
The above is quoted from a recent motion for attorney fees, because things changed significantly when Brinkley lawyered up. While Criminal Productions initially refused to let the case go, recently it voluntarily dismissed the case.<\/p>\n
According to Brinkley\u2019s lawyers, the film company dropped the case like a hot potato when it discovered that the defendant was attempting to look into its business.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs expected, when Plaintiff realized a Motion to Compel discovery was in draft, Criminal sought voluntary dismissal of both its affirmative claims and Brinkley\u2019s counterclaims, which this Court granted, with prejudice, on July 6, 2018.\u201d<\/p>\n
The dismissal came after nearly a year and all this time Criminal Productions failed to produce any evidence. The defense argues that, while the filmmakers had no intention to litigate the \u201cbaseless suit,\u201d their client was forced to run up significant costs.<\/p>\n
The same also happened in other cases, where so-called copyright trolls quickly bailed out when defense attorneys sought discovery. Brinkley\u2019s attorneys see this as a typical example of \u201ccut and run\u201d litigation, and argue that Criminal Productions must pay their client\u2019s legal bill.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese tactics should at minimum require that Defendant Brinkley be made whole for Plaintiff\u2019s filing of litigation it clearly had no intention of pursuing and that may have had no basis in the first instance. This is the very definition of \u2018cut and run\u2019 litigation,\u201d the motion reads.<\/p>\n
The defendant requests compensation for the attorneys\u2019 fees and costs to the tune of $62,818.35, providing a detailed accounting of the costs it made.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/fees.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\nThis request is warranted and not unprecedented, the defense team states, pointing to a recent order in the District of Nevada where a defendant was awarded more than $48,000 compensation in a similar case filed by this same movie outfit.<\/p>\n
Finally, the attorneys add that they see this case being part of the larger \u201cBitTorrent litigation model,\u201d noting that Criminal Productions had no basis for the lawsuit.<\/p>\n
Companies such as Criminal Productions are \u201cspecial purpose entities\u201d (SPE) which are allegedly used to shield the true beneficiaries. The lawsuits are presumably being run by the German investigating firm Guardaley and the lawyers.<\/p>\n
In a separate testimony, defense attorney Lisa Clay writes that Guardaley and the lawyers are the ones that benefit financially from these cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn short, if this case had continued, Defendant is confident it would have established that Plaintiff lacked a good faith basis for its filing in the first instance, and that the claims were brought in bad faith,\u201d the motion concludes.<\/p>\n
\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of the motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs is available\u00a0here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"