To be honest, the venue transfer plan was probably a bad idea that has dragged matters out unnecessarily and may have given Russ the time he needed to respond.
Wake me up when
It was a Rube Goldberg device of a plan, when simply waiting a little and filing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute once he'd racked up a bit more time not responding should have sufficed.
Nothing that couldn't be glossed over with a favorable interpretation by either this court or the appeal he would surely file if it failed. If and when they put this case in the dirt, they don't want to see it again.
The motion to change venue was filed on January 17th, 2 months before Russ missed his deadlines. His motion to stay was denied March 14th, and the venue change was granted on March 20th. This wasn't a bungled legal tactic in response to Russ failing to prosecute his case. The court should have slapped Russ for missing deadlines instead of suddenly ruling on 1 out of 5 defense motions, the one conveniently kicking the can thousands of miles away.
I saw this too, and a motion to strike or more politely a motion to correct under rule 60(a) must be made on this. There is not even ALLEGATION that the material is on the Kiwifarms. The Plaintiff Alleges it is on a GOOGLE DRIVE. Neither the defense or the plaintiff have asserted in substantive filings that the Copyrighted material is on the Kiwifarms. The court is interpreting allegations that have not been alleged by anyone. This cannot be overlooked because it goes to the core of the retardation and the fact the District Judge is acting as Plaintiff against the defense by sua sponte accusing the defense of torts not alleged in the complaint. It needs to be corrected.
Because if he has eight months instead of seven, he's surely going to drop the best motions the world has ever seen. He just keeps pushing the date back because he's afraid those Kiwi Farms trolls will infringe his copyright.
Shouldn't their pending motion address that?
Did anyone actually expect to win on this particular one? Losing on this is fine, it may have antagonized the judge a little bit though which is not good.
good catch I think you are entirely correct.
I think the record shows that I was optimistic.
I didn't really get that feel.
Maybe, but that is directed at the Plaintiff and not the court. Rule 60(a) is to be used when the court starts saying something that needs to be corrected. More importantly though the tabled motion to strike is aimed more at Greer's whining about the Kiwifarms doing all sorts of things that are not relevant to Contributory copyright infringement.
Technically, the 10th Circuit invented that
Did they? Ugh I have a headache. If I'm remembering what the 10th circuit said, they found that Greer had sufficiently pled the necessary qualifications for contributory copyright infringement such that his case could not be dismissed from a Rule 12 failure to state to claim motion. The case at issue turns on whether or not the posting of a Link is THE SAME as posting the material. The court seems to be prejudging this though with statements that "Greer Alleges the Material was posted on the Kiwifarms".
