Sevaral notorious BitTorrent troll plaintiffs have enlarged their operations to include suits against over 100 “Doe” defendants in the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada.
Two cases were filed by QOTD Film Investment Ltd., which holds copyrights to the newly-released Werner Herzog epic Queen of the Desert. As noted in a prior troll defense post, Queen of the Desert stars James Franco, Nicole Kidman and Robert Pattinson, and the Nevada suits are part of an emerging national trolling campaign.
As noted in the prior post regarding QOTD, the nominal copyright holder is an affiliate of Benaroya Pictures, which was founded by “Michael Benaroya, scion of a prominent Seattle real-estate family,” who began backing films in 2009, including past titles such as New York, I Love You, The Romantics, Catch .44, Margin Call and The Words.
Several other actions were lodged by LHF Productions, Inc., which holds copyrights to the action flick London Has Fallen, featuring Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman and Aaron Eckhart in an assassination plot caper. This follows many other LHF suits recently filed in other jurisdictions. As reported before, LHF is an affiliate of Nu Image / Millennium Films, which hold interests in films that have been the subject of prior enforcement actions, including Automata, The Humbling, The Expendables, Charlie Countryman and Bad Lieutenant.
The new lawsuits each allege copyright infringement by unknown “Doe” parties through their use of BitTorrent file-sharing software. The cases seek statutory damages pursuant to the Copyright Act, attorney’s fees and costs, and an injunction against further infringement.
Like another similar lawsuit filed in the same District Court, these complaints were signed by attorney Charles C. Rainey of Rainey Legal Group PLLC in Las Vegas. A case listing with links to the complaints is below.
UPDATE 8/10/16: A new case was just by CELL Film Holdings, LLC, which claims copyrights to the John Cusack/Samuel L. Jackson zombie-themed movie Cell. As noted by Troll Defense in a post on similar Oregon CELL Film Holdings cases, Cell is based on a 2006 Stephen King novel of the same title about a signal sent out over the global cell phone network that transforms every cell phone user into a mindless killer.
CELL Film Holdings is an affiliate of Benaroya Pictures. As predicted earlier, the Cell lawsuits confirm Benaroya’s foray into a national, multi-title “troll-style” lawsuit campaign.
UPDATE 2/1/17: Several new cases were filed by ME2 Productions, Inc., Criminal Productions, Inc., Cook Productions, LLC and I.T. Productions, LLC.
As Troll Defense reported before, ME2 Productions Inc. has rights in the 2016 action thriller Mechanic: Resurrection, which stars Jessica Alba and Jason Stratham. The films’s predecessor, The Mechanic, was also the subject of BitTorrent lawsuits.
Criminal Productions controls the sci-fi flick Criminal, which stars Kevin Costner as a brain-damaged convict implanted with the memories of a deceased CIA operative. As noted in a past Troll Defense report, Criminal Productions is also an affiliate of Nu Image / Millennium Films.
As troll defense previously reported, Cook Productions is an affiliate of Cinelou Films, a production company with a “notable catalog of major motion pictures.” The Mr. Church lawsuits filed in Washington and various other federal courts across the U.S. represent the first known attempts by Cinelou Films at “troll-style” copyright litigation.
I.T. Productions, LLC holds rights in the 2016 film, I.T., a “techno-thriller” starring Pierce Brosnan as a technphobic aviation tycoon, as posted earlier. I.T. Productions is an affiliate of Voltage Pictures, LLC, the instigator of countless other BitTorrent lawsuits involving film titles such as Dallas Buyers Club, Good Kill, The Cobbler, Fathers & Daugthers, Pay the Ghost, and The Hurt Locker.
Parties and subscribers receiving ISP notices of these actions can contact attorney Benjamin Justus for a free consultation regarding possible options.
Case No. 2:16-cv-00924
LHF Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1 -11
Filed: 04/24/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-00925
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-14
Filed: 04/24/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-00926
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-30
Filed: 04/24/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-00928
QOTD Film Investment Ltd v. Doe Defendants 1-30
Filed: 04/24/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-00929
QOTD Film Investment Ltd v. DOES 1-37
Filed: 04/24/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-01803
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-21
Filed: 07/28/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-01853
CELL Film Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-19
Filed: 08/05/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-01918
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-18
Filed: 08/12/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02089
CELL Film Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-20
Filed: 09/02/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02375
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-5
Filed: 10/11/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02368
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10
Filed: 10/11/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02384
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-14
Filed: 10/13/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02513
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21
Filed: 10/29/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02520
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-15
Filed: 10/31/2016
Filed: 11/23/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02689
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 11/23/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02691
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 11/25/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02704
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 11/25/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02705
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does
Filed: 12/05/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02783
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 12/05/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02788
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 12/05/2016
Case No. 2:16-cv-02799
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/06/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00069
Cook Productions, LLC v. Does
Filed: 01/12/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00114
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/13/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00121
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/13/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00122
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/13/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00123
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/13/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00124
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filed: 01/13/2017
Case No. 2:17-cv-00126
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does