I recently analyzed the outcome of a single-image copyright infringement case where the principals made the strategic decision to NOT defend it. It is the case of FameFlynet vs. Swish Suits LLC filed in the Central District of CA.
People always seem to think that every lawsuit has to be responded to and that you must hire a lawyer to respond to it. Often, that is true but in the case of smaller businesses, it is sometimes not financially feasible, practical, or economically wise to do so. Sometimes, it is just best to strategically "let it go" and "abandon" the corporate entity and let the state administratively dissolve it (don't pay the fees or file the annual documents).
Let the plaintiff spend the money and effort to obtain an noncollectable judgment. That is what Sanders and FameFlynet did and the principals did not contest their efforts.
FameFlynet foolishly allowed Sanders Laws to file suit against Swish Suits LLC over a single image. The business looks "big" because of their nice website but actually smaller than they look.
The principals of Swish Suits tried to negotiate a settlement with Sanders but no agreement occurred and Sanders/FameFly apparently wanted to teach Swish Suits a lesson by filing suit over the single image on Oct 27, 2015.
Swish Suits LLC was served but it appears they had made the decision to "let the LLC" go. In other words, they abandoned" the LLC and it was administratively dissolved by the state. They also shut down checking accounts bearing that name as that LLC was no longer beneficial to keep or maintain.
By the time Sanders/FameFly got to the end in January 2016 with their judgment, the LLC was functionally dead.
The default judgment for the one image was $2,500 plus $400 filing fee and $285 process server fees. The original extortion letter was around $7,000. The attorney fees were $7,160. On paper, the total court judgment is a $10,000 judgment.
HOWEVER, is any of it really "collectible"? I would say, NO. IN THEORY, it MIGHT be collectible if Sanders and Fameflynet wants to spend even more legal fees to file more motions or alternative lawsuits on whatever arguments they can dream of to try to find corporate assets.
It is very hard, if not impossible, to garnish bank accounts that don't exist in the party name of any lawsuit judgment. It is also very hard to "take over" digital "assets" that can be recreated under a different name. And even if they "took over" the digital assets, who would be dumb enough to buy those digital assets in any auction? They would be functionally worthless to everyone except the original principals. But they could recreate such assets and launch another website with very little costs.
I am not necessarily recommending what the principals of Swish Suits LLC did to anyone but I do recommend being educated that it is an interesting strategic option that I would consider executing if circumstances warranted it.
This case also demonstrates that courts are "reasonable" and will not allow 5 or 6 figure judgments over mundane image infringements. And the only reason why the overall judgment even cracked $10K was the inflated and uncontested legal fees.
Again, it appears to be a non-issue because the LLC has been dissolved and the checking accounts closed. FameFlynet foolishly followed the advice of Sanders Law who wanted to "look good" for their client. Well, their client aren't going to like receiving a legal bill for services that resulted only in a "paper win".
Again, it is conceivable FameFlynet might want to spend more money to try to find any corporate assets of a small online business. Good luck with that.
People always seem to think that every lawsuit has to be responded to and that you must hire a lawyer to respond to it. Often, that is true but in the case of smaller businesses, it is sometimes not financially feasible, practical, or economically wise to do so. Sometimes, it is just best to strategically "let it go" and "abandon" the corporate entity and let the state administratively dissolve it (don't pay the fees or file the annual documents).
Let the plaintiff spend the money and effort to obtain an noncollectable judgment. That is what Sanders and FameFlynet did and the principals did not contest their efforts.
FameFlynet foolishly allowed Sanders Laws to file suit against Swish Suits LLC over a single image. The business looks "big" because of their nice website but actually smaller than they look.
The principals of Swish Suits tried to negotiate a settlement with Sanders but no agreement occurred and Sanders/FameFly apparently wanted to teach Swish Suits a lesson by filing suit over the single image on Oct 27, 2015.
Swish Suits LLC was served but it appears they had made the decision to "let the LLC" go. In other words, they abandoned" the LLC and it was administratively dissolved by the state. They also shut down checking accounts bearing that name as that LLC was no longer beneficial to keep or maintain.
By the time Sanders/FameFly got to the end in January 2016 with their judgment, the LLC was functionally dead.
The default judgment for the one image was $2,500 plus $400 filing fee and $285 process server fees. The original extortion letter was around $7,000. The attorney fees were $7,160. On paper, the total court judgment is a $10,000 judgment.
HOWEVER, is any of it really "collectible"? I would say, NO. IN THEORY, it MIGHT be collectible if Sanders and Fameflynet wants to spend even more legal fees to file more motions or alternative lawsuits on whatever arguments they can dream of to try to find corporate assets.
It is very hard, if not impossible, to garnish bank accounts that don't exist in the party name of any lawsuit judgment. It is also very hard to "take over" digital "assets" that can be recreated under a different name. And even if they "took over" the digital assets, who would be dumb enough to buy those digital assets in any auction? They would be functionally worthless to everyone except the original principals. But they could recreate such assets and launch another website with very little costs.
I am not necessarily recommending what the principals of Swish Suits LLC did to anyone but I do recommend being educated that it is an interesting strategic option that I would consider executing if circumstances warranted it.
This case also demonstrates that courts are "reasonable" and will not allow 5 or 6 figure judgments over mundane image infringements. And the only reason why the overall judgment even cracked $10K was the inflated and uncontested legal fees.
Again, it appears to be a non-issue because the LLC has been dissolved and the checking accounts closed. FameFlynet foolishly followed the advice of Sanders Law who wanted to "look good" for their client. Well, their client aren't going to like receiving a legal bill for services that resulted only in a "paper win".
Again, it is conceivable FameFlynet might want to spend more money to try to find any corporate assets of a small online business. Good luck with that.