Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post to sue mom and pop websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright infringement. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these website owners, who are primarily unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court.
Righthaven lawsuitsTo date Righthaven has been ordered to pay $323,138 in legal fees and sanctions.Righthaven lawsuits

Thursday, May 19, 2011

It's Gotta Hurt: Motion for Attorney Edward Fenno to Withdraw from Dana Eiser Case

Journalist Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun (and sister newspaper VEGAS INC) recently reported that "Righthaven may need to find a new local attorney in South Carolina" in its case against Dana Eiser of Summerville. In December, Eiser posted a Denver Post column, "A Letter to the Tea Partyers," to her nonprofit advocacy website. Attorney Edward Fenno filed court papers May 17 saying he’s withdrawing from the case for undisclosed reasons. A judge has yet to rule on Fenno's motion.
Righthaven LLC v. Dana Eiser
Movant, Edward T. Fenno (“Counsel”), respectfully moves for withdrawal of his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) in the above-referenced matter, and to stay proceedings in this matter for fourteen (14) days to allow Righthaven opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. In support thereof, Counsel states the following:
1. Counsel’s withdrawal is permissible under the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct pursuant to Rule 1.16(b)(1) (“withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”); Rule 1.16(b)(5) (“the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services or payment therefore and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled”); Rule 1.16(b)(6) (“the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client”); and/or Rule 1.16(b)(7) (“other good cause for withdrawal exists”).
See: Motion in full

Related articles:
Counterclaims Stack Up Against Righthaven; Latest Asserts Malicious Prosecution Claim
Eiser's Attorneys Reject Demand; Offer Righthaven Chance to Settle by Paying $250,000
Eiser Team Releases More Correspondence; Righthaven Drops Domain Seizure Demand

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments that persecute Righthaven victims will be deleted.