Right Haven seems to be gathering legal losses, as they were out of fashion. I wonder if it 's always been a company that has been around so many times by so many judges have been slapped. No matter how many times Right Haven boss Steve Gibson claims that the courts agree mostly agree with him and are only \ of the matter "with guidelines", others, the reality is that the company hasn 't lose straight, it' s already got a regular basis switching by angry judge, the \ no patience for the company's legal strategy appears to have.

The latest involves one of the key cases here: the Democratic Underground case. This is the case where the Strategic Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media finally came to light, showing that the copyright transfer was a sham. That resulted in the judge dismissing Righthaven from the case. The case kept going, however, because the Democratic Underground had filed a countersuit against Stephens Media to get it into the case. Of course, part of the reason why Stephens helped set up Righthaven in the first place was to avoid having to be involved in these lawsuits. So, ever the dutiful spin-off, Righthaven keeps trying to reinsert itself into the case.

But once again, the judge in the case, Richard Hunt, clear Right Haven 's attempt rejected here (pdf). Hunt says that major reason for the not so Right Haven back in was because the timing of everything, and notes that, even if it 's is now offering a (twice) "changed" agreement to its case , late change it 's the things in this case:

Right Haven argues that the application to intervene is timely, because it brought the motion, shortly after he dismissed from the lawsuit and the elimination of the problems with the SAA by the creation of the amended and restated SAA. The court disagrees. Right Haven intervene filed this case more than 10 months before their application. It is true that Right Haven could not attempt to intervene until he was dismissed, but that's because of the method, at the Right Haven decided to pursue this litigation. Right Haven request is untimely, because 10 months have passed since the submission would have been Democratic Underground intervention as more of its discovery motions dismissed as irrelevant when Democratic Underground was released prejudices, and the reason for the delay was the own production is Right Haven. See, eg, Cal. Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (laying out factors to consider timeliness analysis). In fact, the reason Haven Right now trying to intervene to the ruling of the 14th Order by June the creation of standing and rights deal after the fact. This is inappropriate and not the application at the right time.

And that 's not all!

The Court is doubtful whether Right Haven can essentially create is in the middle of a case, so that either independently or pursue the case to intervene. Further, the Court asked whether Right Haven even have a legitimate interest under any contract (transfer regardless of the rights allegedly) because Stephens seems the media and Right Haven arrangement very similar to a contingency fee agreement with a company not authorized to practice law.

In other words, that the Court amicus brief filed by Todd Kincannon, we 've discussed before you hear it. Kincannon was the lead voice argues that Right Haven engaged in unauthorized practice of law, so it 's interesting to see a judge suggest that he agrees.

See at what point the people at Right Haven finally, it 's time to give up?

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story