Did you mean: Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe ?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group , was a ... In the 2013 civil ruling, Prenda Law, and three named principals, John ..... created sham companies such as "AF Holdings LLC" and "Ingenuity 13 LLC" ... $81,319.72 payable to John Doe's attorneys, until all sanctions are fully paid.

casetext.com/case/ingenuity-13-llc-v-john-doe

Aug 23, 2016 ... On August 3, 2016, Defendant John Doe moved for summary adjudication of ... See generally Ingenuity13 LLC v. Doe, No. 13-55859, 2016 WL ...

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2016/06/10/13-55859.pdf

Jun 10, 2016 ... INGENUITY13 LLC,. Plaintiff,. And. PAUL HANSMEIER, Esquire,. Movant - Appellant, v. JOHN DOE,. Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-55859.

www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/05/Penda-Sanctions-Ruling.pdf

May 6, 2013 ... INGENUITY 13 LLC,. Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE,. Defendant. Case No. 2:12-cv-8333- ODW(JCx). ORDER ISSUING SANCTIONS. “The needs of the ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1742903.html

Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx), 2013 WL 1898633 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). On behalf of Lightspeed Media, a company that ...

law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/12-7135/12-7135-2014-05-27.html

AF Holdings could not possibly have had a good faith belief that it could successfully sue the overwhelming majority of the John Doe defendants in this district.

www.eff.org/files/filenode/motion_to_relate_cases_n.d._cal.pdf

v. JOHN DOE,. Defendant. 3:2012-cv-04216-JSW. Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Complaint filed: 08/09/2012. INGENUITY 13 LLC,. Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE,.

www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Sag_Matthew_IPSC_paper_2014.pdf

Jul 22, 2014 ... 20 17 U.S.C.§504(c)(statutory damages). 21 Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, 2:12- CV-8333-ODW JCX, 2013 WL 1898633 (C.D. Cal. May 6,.

stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Petition+for+disciplinary+action+against+Hansmeier.pdf

Nov 21, 2013 ... 7. Illustrative of respondent's practice in this regard are the findings of the court in the matter of Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, Case No.