Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/161739710/Magistrate-Vadas-Order-re-AF-Holdings-August-28-Hearing
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 14:38:53
Document Index: 381050097

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document103 Filed08/20/13 Page1 of 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The parties should be prepared to address the following issues during the August 28, 2013 evidentiary hearing on defendant Joe Navasca’s motion for sanctions: 1. In his May 6, 2013 opinion, Judge Wright of the Central District of California made extensive findings regarding the corporate structure of AF Holdings LLC and the relationships between AF Holdings, Prenda Law, Steele Hansmeier PLC, John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Peter Hansmeier, Patrick Duffy, and Brett Gibbs. See Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64564 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). What legal effect do these findings have in this action? 2. The district court awarded Navasca attorneys’ fees and costs on July 22, 2013. See Doc. No. 100. a. Has AF Holdings paid these fees and costs? If so, is the motion for sanctions moot? b. If AF Holdings has not paid these fees and costs, what is the proper remedy? i. Should AF Holdings be held in contempt of court? ii. Is the award a “judgment”? If so, why is Navasca proceeding by filing a JOE NAVASCA, Defendant. ORDER RE AUGUST 28, 2013 EVIDENTIARY HEARING AF HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 12-cv-02396-EMC (NJV) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document103 Filed08/20/13 Page2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
motion for sanctions rather than proceeding under California’s enforcement of judgment law? 3. Navasca moves for sanctions under the district court’s inherent power and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.1 See Doc. No. 93. Sanctions under the district court’s inherent power can be awarded against a person or entity who controls the litigation and is responsible for the abusive conduct, even if not a party thereto. See In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 77 F.3d 278, 282-83 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining Lockary v. Kayfetz, 974 F.2d 1166, 116970 (9th Cir. 1992)). Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 can only be awarded against the attorney whose conduct is improper. How can Paul Hansmeier or John Steele be held liable for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? 4. On February 19, 2013, Paul Hansmeier appeared as the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deponent on behalf of AF Holdings in this action. See Doc. No. 93-11 (Ex. J). a. Hansmeier testified that AF Holdings was owned by a trust, but he could not testify about the name of the trust. Id. at 51:17-22. In a May 2, 2013 filing, Mark Lutz, who identifies himself as someone who “manage[s] various adult content related companies, including AF Holdings LLC,” declared that “Salt Marsh is the name of the trust that owns AF Holdings” (Doc. No. 80, ¶ 2).2 At the hearing, AF Holdings should be prepared to identify the name of its owner and any entity or person having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, beyond Salt Marsh. b. AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why it represented that there were “no known persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities (other than the parties themselves) that may have personal or affiliated financial interest in the subject
Judge Wright found that there was “at least specific jurisdiction over these persons because of their pecuniary interest and their active, albeit clandestine participation in these cases.” Doc. No. 98-4 (Plaintiff’s Opp’n, Ex. I to M. Lutz letter). 2 Hansmeier testified that “Mr. Lutz is the sole manager/employee of AF Holdings.” Doc. No. 93-11 (Ex. J) at 127:3-10. In another case, Lutz identified himself as the CEO of AF Holdings LLC. See Doc. No. 98-4 (Ex. E) ¶ 1. 2
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document103 Filed08/20/13 Page3 of 3
matter in controversy, or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding other than the parties.” Doc. No. 2 (Certificate of Interested Entities). c. AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why Paul Hansmeier was designated as its 30(b)(6) deponent instead of Mark Lutz. d. Paul Hansmeier was unable to testify about “the exact mechanisms by which the money goes from” to AF Holdings from the law firms that represent it. Doc. No. 93-11 (Ex. J) at 95:2-96:22. AF Holdings should be prepared to explain these “exact mechanisms” at the hearing, and also should be prepared to provide an accounting of the funds it has received from persons it has sued or threatened to sue for copyright violation based on allegedly illegal downloading of its adult titles.
Dated: August 20, 2013 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulMagistrate Vadas' Order re: AF Holdings August 28 Hearing by Adam Steinbaugh0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionMagistrate Vadas' Order re: AF Holdings August 28 Hearing in CANDMagistrate Vadas' Order re: AF Holdings August 28 Hearing in CANDInterests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedKlinedinst request to 9th Circuit Court of Appealsby simalityBrief 1.1by simalityDefendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Cross-motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims for Failure To Prosecute (Harris Doc. 95)by simalityCase: 1:12-cv-08000by simalityPatel Bench Slapby simalityECF 207: Heller response to Steele's Motion for Reconsideration and Exhibit Aby SaltMarshGhostNinth Circuit 13-55881 #16by SaltMarshGhostPatel Transcriptby simality208 Heller Declarationby SaltMarshGhostPatel Orderby simality213 Duffy App to Reduce Bondby SaltMarshGhostEmail correspondence between Chintella and Comcast part 1by simalityEmail correspondence between Chintella and Comcast Part 2by simalityComcast continues to be stubborn; refuses to give up the goodsby simalityURGENT RENEWED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTSby J DoeHansmeier's objection in Minnesota 1445by simalityCase 1:13-cv-04341 Document 52by simalityMotion to File Late Brief Late - Annotated Finalby simalityOlivias Case: Doc 35.0by simalityMark Lutz goes off the deep endby SaltMarshGhost#205: Steele Amended Motion for Reconsideration (with Ex. A)by SaltMarshGhostJudge Otis D Wright II's Calendar for July 12 2013by SaltMarshGhostISP's brief take 2by simalityCase: 0-12-cv-01445_52_0by simalityNON.PARTY PAUL HANSMEIER'S OPPOSITION TO RAJESH PATEL'S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR CONTEMPTby simality15ca6e52-3842-444e-867f-8771a0445976by prendadocsPatel Bankruptcyby simalityGibbs Declaration ISO Sanctions (Prenda)by Adam SteinbaughSimilar to Magistrate Vadas' Order reSkip carouselKlinedinst request to 9th Circuit Court of AppealsBrief 1.1Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Cross-motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims for Failure To Prosecute (Harris Doc. 95)CasePatel Bench SlapECF 207Ninth Circuit 13-55881 #16Patel Transcript208 Heller DeclarationPatel Order213 Duffy App to Reduce BondEmail correspondence between Chintella and Comcast part 1Email correspondence between Chintella and Comcast Part 2Comcast continues to be stubborn; refuses to give up the goodsURGENT RENEWED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTSHansmeier's objection in Minnesota 1445Case 1:13-cv-04341 Document 52Motion to File Late Brief Late - Annotated FinalOlivias CaseMark Lutz goes off the deep end#205Judge Otis D Wright II's Calendar for July 12 2013ISP's brief take 2CaseNON.PARTY PAUL HANSMEIER'S OPPOSITION TO RAJESH PATEL'S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR CONTEMPT15ca6e52-3842-444e-867f-8771a0445976Patel BankruptcyGibbs Declaration ISO Sanctions (Prenda)Doc 58 in Minnesota case (1449)Case3:12-cv-01006-JCS Document60Magistrate Vadas' Order re