Morgan Pietz Objects To Duffy's Bond In Prenda Case, Points Out More Typical Prenda Tricks

Failures

from the check-for-john-doe dept

We were a bit surprised that Prenda Law’s Paul Duffy actually filed a bond to cover the amount that Judge Otis Wright ordered Team Prenda to pay in legal fees for their shenanigans. To date, Team Prenda seems to go out of its way to play games and to avoid doing what the court is actually asking, so it seemed like a bit of a departure to see them actually file a bond (if a few days late, and with some protest). But, apparently, we should never underestimate Prenda’s game-playing.

The lawyer opposing them, Morgan Pietz, has responded to the bond asking the court not to accept it until a variety of changes are made, and which highlights the type of petty activity that Prenda is well known for engaging in. The most brazen, perhaps, is the fact that Duffy made the bond be in the name of “John Doe” for the unidentified client, but Pietz points out that, given that’s not the Doe’s real name, it’s possible that they may get a check that can’t be cashed. That’s the kind of thing that has Prenda’s name written all over it — doing something that pretends to be helpful, when inside they’re laughing about the “trick” they pulled on people.

That’s not all. Duffy, in his filing, had said that Pietz had not been cooperative in having a “meet and confer” to agree on what the bond amount should be. But Pietz tells a very different story, and provides the email evidence.

The first undersigned counsel heard about a bond, or payment, from any Prenda party (with the exception of Mr. Gibbs; his motions will be addressed by separate response) was on Monday May 20, 2013, when Paul Duffy sent a short email on the subject, offering to post a bond in the amount of 125% of the amount awarded in the Sanctions Order. Undersigned counsel dutifully responded later that day (to all parties), outlining a number of concerns about the amount and conditions that should attach to a supersedeas bond, reiterating concerns raised in the appellate response papers regarding no stay of the non-monetary aspects of this Court’s order, and requesting that Prenda respond with their views on the substantive topics raised. Exhibit 1.

On May 21, 2013, this Court issued an Order Denying Ex parte Application for Stay of Enforcement ; Order to Show Cause Re Attorney’s-Fee Award. ECF No. 164. The next day, after close of business on May 22, 2013, still not having heard anything regarding payment or a bond, undersigned counsel again emailed all Prenda parties in another attempt to meet and confer regarding appeal bond details. Exhibit 1. In response to the May 22 query attempting to spur further discussion on the several points raised by undersigned counsel previously on the bond issue, Mr. Duffy wrote back “You had no substantive points. If you think of some and can articulate them coherently I would be glad to consider them. Thanks for thinking of me.” Id. Shortly after receiving Mr. Duffy’s foregoing email, undersigned counsel pointed out to everyone that such a response was not very helpful, and invited the rest of the Prenda parties to respond in substantive fashion. Nobody did. Mr. Duffy, however, did write the whole group one more time, in nonsensical and vaguely threatening fashion, to indicate that has apparently made a conscious decision to send undersigned counsel’s email messages to the SPAM folder. Exhibit 1

In case you can’t look at the exhibit, the email that Duffy wrote back to Pietz — which was clearly not an automated response — was the following:

Thanks for your message Sir/Madam! Unfortunately, due to your inappropriate language and messages, which are within the access of my young children, I must place you in my “spam” filter. Unfortunately, I delete such messages daily without reading them. I wish you a speedy recovery, and make it a GREAT day!

Among the other problems with the bond, is that only Duffy has signed onto it, and as Pietz points out, since there are many different parties, each appealing separately, it’s not at all clear as to what happens if some are exonerated, while others are found guilty. And, of course, Pietz argues that the amount is way too low, because it should take into account the likely cost of the appeal as well. Oh, and Pietz also wants it to be clear that Team Prenda can’t get out of paying the bond by declaring bankruptcy.

Basically, it looks like Team Prenda simply can’t resist playing its games — once again, seeming to think that it’s so much smarter than everyone else, that it can run verbal rings around those exposing their efforts.

Update: And… Judge Wright has just basically agreed with Pietz, conditionally granting the bond, but only if Duffy makes a bunch of changes to deal with the claims that Pietz brought up, and also says they need to add another bond for $135,933.66, to get the total up to $237,583.66 which is the amount Pietz argued was proper given the circumstances.

Filed Under: bond, john steele, meet and confer, morgan pietz, otis wright, paul duffy
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law