Voodoo

[fat-cat]

just surfing the net and came across this <br />
Said it was posted yesterday <br />
<br />
C/P <br />
<br />
DISH Sues Canada-Based Pirate IPTV Provider ‘Voodoo IPTV’ <br />
<br />
TV broadcaster DISH Network has filed a lawsuit in a...

[nobodyspecial]

They should avoid any trips to the states when the borders open...lol

[Maestro701]

Whoa! Even Nepal? High up on Everest

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So why did they not file in Canada ? The defendants are surely not going to respond not that they would if it was filed in Canada necessarily either.


They will then have to get a US Judgment, come to Canada to apply to enforce it in Court here something there should succeed on but its extra steps. Maybe the Court is open in Texas versus not for filing an Action in Ontario ? or they think they will get a much bigger Judgment uncontested from the US Court than Canada ? US Judgment versus Canadian, that alone is worth considerable more.


The Canadian and or Nepal defendant could raise a jurisdiction issue claiming Dish does not have jurisdiction over them. Usually these guys don't bother to respond. Is Voodoo still operating ? Guess so. If Dish gets aggressive and pushes this to a conclusion their assets are fragile if they have any.




GS2

[MarvinGardens]

They should avoid any trips to the states when the borders open...lol

Doesn't matter. They are doing "business" in the US and thus have "substantial contacts" with the jurisdiction that allow a US court to proceed against them.

[MarvinGardens]

So why did they not file in Canada ?
GS2

It's almost always better to file in a jurisdiction closest to the the Plaintiff.

It's far less expensive and the court's are friendlier to one of their own.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It's almost always better to file in a jurisdiction closest to the the Plaintiff.

It's far less expensive and the court's are friendlier to one of their own.



Dish has an extensive past record of filing in Canada with a success rate around 99%. As far as expensive depends on the law firm they engage but filing fees are probably about the same. These actions are rarely defended so it usually proceeds to default.


But like I said with filing in the US they will then have to bring their Judgement to Canada and make an application to a Canadian Court to enforce their foreign Judgment. That is an extra expense and not a given but most likely successful. They must have some reason but they certainly have file a ton of cases in Canada against Canadian defendants. There might not be much Canadian IPTV cases adjudicated in Canada and they felt it was an easier route even with that extra legal step.





GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So why did they not file in Canada ? The defendants are surely not going to respond not that they would if it was filed in Canada necessarily either.


They will then have to get a US Judgment, come to Canada to apply to enforce it in Court here something there should succeed on but its extra steps. Maybe the Court is open in Texas versus not for filing an Action in Ontario ? or they think they will get a much bigger Judgment uncontested from the US Court than Canada ? US Judgment versus Canadian, that alone is worth considerable more.


The Canadian and or Nepal defendant could raise a jurisdiction issue claiming Dish does not have jurisdiction over them. Usually these guys don't bother to respond. Is Voodoo still operating ? Guess so. If Dish gets aggressive and pushes this to a conclusion their assets are fragile if they have any.




GS2




In their filings the Canadian defendants claim the intend on doing that.




Defendants,2 who are Canadian residents and citizens,
intend to file a Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2),

DISH alleged
personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), however, Defendants threaten to file a
Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.



I have not seen or don't recall one Canadian defendant successful with that. I do recall once but later reverse on appeal. Plaintiffs are going after PayPal records. They likely will succeed maybe not in everything they ask but a good portion. I say that just based on previous decisions.




GS2

[Highwayman]

In their filings the Canadian defendants claim the intend on doing that.







I have not seen or don't recall one Canadian defendant successful with that. I do recall once but later reverse on appeal. Plaintiffs are going after PayPal records. They likely will succeed maybe not in everything they ask but a good portion. I say that just based on previous decisions.





GS2

Not sure how paypal evidence could stand up in court bring a cracker with you no not a white guy
a hacker/cracker they will show the judge how easy it is to crack paypal i was on a site where someone posted
a 1000 legit paypal accounts thats an everyday occurrence.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

There never has been a problem in Court with records supplied by PayPal. I hardly doubt someone would bring in a hacker to try to discredit records supplied by PayPal. If anyone ever did that, a hacker would have show evidence that the records entered in Court was obtained by hacking and were altered. No Judge in my opinion would ever accept how easy it is to hack, only evidence that the records were not legit.


However perhaps your comment was made and to to be taken in a joking way.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

This case ended March 9th with the defendants except one of them, who I guess they never found being from Nepal, all agreed to a Permanent Injunction. However, one of them, the main defendant, Cren Motasaki, mysteriously was not named in the first & only amended complaint filed 5 months later. Thus its my speculation he is suspect as to what he may be up to. His name does not seem to appear anywhere after the initial filing of the first complaint yet below he was described in the complaint & the article as over seeing the day to day operations, having the decision -making power which is key plus living in the US. Below I included how they described him in the initial complaint, yet you will notice he was not included as a defendant in the amended complaint. I have attached both complaints.



First initial lawsuit 34.
05/15/2020 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541-24667380) filed by NagraStar LLC, DISH Network L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ferguson, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

Cren Motasaki has a history of engaging in piracy-related activities that impact Plaintiffs. Motasaki is a member of Worldofiptv.com and has made posts in the Xtream codes auto installer thread. Motasaki used the email address [email protected] to make and receive payments for piracy-related devices. Motasaki used the email address [email protected] to purchase streams of television programming



From the article
Filed in a Texas court this week, the complaint alleges that Motasaki is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of Voodoo IPTV and has overall decision-making power. He is said to have a history of involvement with piracy-related activities and was identified as a member of the WorldofIPTV.com forum having made posts in an Xtream Codes-related thread.

10/02/2020 40 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rafa Abdul, Does 1-11, Atta Ur Rauf, Sajan Kyubi Shrestha, Pepin Woolcock filed by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC.(Ferguson, Stephen) (Entered: 10/02/2020)






03/01/2021 47 NOTICE of Dismissal as to Does 1-11, Sajan Kyubi Shrestha by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC, filed. (Hagan, Chad) (Entered: 03/01/2021)

03/02/2021 48 ORDER granting 47 Notice of Dismissal as to Does 1-11 and Sajan Kyubi Shrestha. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

03/03/2021 49 Agreed MOTION for Permanent Injunction by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/24/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order - Agreed Permanent Injunction Against Defendants Rafa Abdul, Atta Ur Rauf and Pepin Woolcock)(Hagan, Chad) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

03/09/2021 50 AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS RAFA ABDUL, ATTAUR RAUF & PEPIN WOOLCOCK (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 03/09/2021)





GS2

[Gates07]

companies like dish do court shopping so when they file they already have the judge in the hip pocket, they are suppose to file in court where their main business is, florida use to be their favorite spot

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I get it DN is the enemy but I hardly doubt they have the judge in their pocket nor know what judge it will be assigned to the case in advance.

What do they have is money for high quality lawfirms in every State, a strong case, usually with credible evidence, and Defendants with weak to little defense with lack of funding to mount a legal challenge. It is a Goliath v David situation.

They do not need to file in the city where their main business is, besides they conduct business in every State. They correctly file where the Defendants are located. Imagine if they filed in Denver and the Defendants were in NYC. Those Defendants would complain about extra costs to defend especially if they were defending themselves without a lawyer.

The above is not popular but I don't write to be. I write to try to give what I believe is more accurate as people should be better informed if they are going to put themselves at legal risk.





A plaintiff generally can sue in any judicial district in which the defendant resides or does business, or in any district in which the events that led to the lawsuit occurred.




GS2