Plastic the Movie Lawsuits in Florida

Plastic may lack ‘plausibility’ as a film, but, unfortunately, Plastic the Movie lawsuits have just enough plausibility to pass judicial muster in SDFL

Earlier this month, for Plaintiff Plastic the Movie Limited, Miami Attorney M. Keith Lipscomb (who also represents Malibu Media, LLC, among others) filed 31 lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida against anonymous “John Does” for the downloading of a British film, Plastic.

Now, I watch a lot of British and Irish film and television, and I have absolutely no interest in this film, which appears more American than British and even seems to be set more in the Plaintiff’s attorney’s own city of Miami than in the U.K.  Reviewer Geoffrey McNab, writing for the UK Independent, writes that the film runs “like a bad episode of The Inbetweeners, minus all the jokes.”  (If you haven’t seen the Inbetweeners – it’s actually quite funny – check it out on Netflix.)

McNab also says that the film is lacking in “plausibility,” which ironically is the same term the United States Supreme Court used to describe the standard that a complaint must have to state a cause of action in federal lawsuits:

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

I have previously argued, on behalf of Defendants served in other BitTorrent lawsuits in the federal courts in Florida, that complaints filed by similar film-studio Plaintiffs are not plausible, because the Defendant can only be identified by his/her/its IP address, and, we all know, an IP address is not a person.  However, the overwhelming majority of judges in Florida continue to allow these lawsuits and find that they are plausible enough to state a cause of action.

Therefore, if you receive a notice regarding one of these lawsuits, be warned that the “IP address is not a person” argument is not going to get you anywhere, at least in this early stage of the litigation.  You are unfortunately now involved in federal litigation – even though you may have a router with an unprotected password and several teenagers living next door, which happens to be the case more often than you might realize.

If you would like to discuss your options of how to deal with this lawsuit, please call our office at 407-965-5519.  You can also send an email.

Below is a trailer.  Farther below it is a copy of one of the complaints filed in the Southern District of Florida, as well as a list of all the cases filed, so far, to date, by Lipscomb.

Copy of a complaint filed in the Fort Myers Division of the Southern District of Florida.

Plastic the Movie Complaint

Case Numbers for the various Plastic the Movie lawsuits

Plastic the Movie Limited v. John Doe.  Source: Pacer

1. 0:2015-cv-60719 (filed April 6, 2015; closed April 6, 2015)
2. 0:2015-cv-60720 (filed April 6, 2015)
3. 0:2015-cv-60721 (filed April 6, 2015; closed April 13, 2015)
4. 9:2015-cv-80421 (filed April 3, 2015)
5. 1:2015-cv-21297 (filed April 3, 2015)
6. 0:2015-cv-60688 (filed April 3, 2015)
7. 1:2015-cv-21298 (filed April 3, 2015)
8. 1:2015-cv-21299 (filed April 3, 2015)
9. 9:2015-cv-80422 (filed April 3, 2015)
10. 1:2015-cv-21300 (filed April 3, 2015)
11. 0:2015-cv-60689 (filed April 3, 2015)
12. 9:2015-cv-80423 (filed April 3, 2015)
13. 0:2015-cv-60690 (filed April 3, 2015)
14. 0:2015-cv-60691 (filed April 3, 2015; closed April 13, 2015)
15. 0:2015-cv-60692 (filed April 3, 2015)
16. 0:2015-cv-60693 (filed April 3, 2015)
17. 1:2015-cv-21301 (filed April 3, 2015; closed April 13, 2015)
18. 1:2015-cv-21303 (filed April 3, 2015)
19. 1:2015-cv-21304 (filed April 3, 2015)
20. 0:2015-cv-60694 (filed April 3, 2015)
21. 0:2015-cv-60697 (filed April 3, 2015)
22. 0:2015-cv-60698 (filed April 3, 2015)
23. 9:2015-cv-80424 (filed April 3, 2015)
24. 2:2015-cv-14117 (filed April 3, 2015; closed April 6, 2015)
25. 0:2015-cv-60699 (filed April 3, 2015; closed April 13, 2015)
26. 9:2015-cv-80425 (filed April 3, 2015)
27. 9:2015-cv-80426 (filed April 3, 2015)
28. 0:2015-cv-60700 (filed April 3, 2015)
29. 0:2015-cv-60701 (filed April 3, 2015)
30. 0:2015-cv-60702 (filed April 3, 2015; closed April 3, 2015)
31. 1:2015-cv-21310 (filed April 3, 2015)