News

Marshals ordered to seize $63,720 from Righthaven

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Nov. 2, 2011 | 5:25 p.m.

U.S. marshals have been ordered to seize $63,720 from Righthaven LLC, a company that files copyright infringement lawsuits, to fulfill a judgment against the company.

Lance Wilson, the clerk of federal court, this week signed a writ of execution that was requested by lawyers for Kentucky website poster Wayne Hoehn, who obtained the judgment for legal fees after winning a lawsuit Righthaven filed against him.

The lawsuit was in response to Hoehn's posting of a Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports-betting website. The Review-Journal is a Righthaven client.

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro this summer dismissed the lawsuit and ordered Righthaven to pay $34,045 in fees to Hoehn's Las Vegas lawyers.

The writ covers the $34,045 plus nearly $30,000 in additional legal fees piled up by Hoehn's lawyers.

In their motion seeking to seize Righthaven assets, Hoehn's lawyers said the company has been stalling payment of the judgment.

Righthaven attorneys have appealed the dismissal and the judgment to the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Steve Gibson, the company's chief executive officer, would not say what steps Righthaven is taking to respond to the ordered seizure.

But Gibson said the company will continue to address the issues in the case with the courts.

Gibson said he thinks Righthaven will be vindicated in its belief "that people ought to be able to engage in private contracts to uphold copyright ownership."

Comments (5)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

X

Register to comment

* Indicates fields that are required
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Male Female

Already registered? Log in now

X

Already registered to comment?

Log in below
E-mail
Password

Forgot your password? | Register
X

Forgot your password?

Enter your e-mail address below and a password will be resent to you.

Email
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Report abuse

kbingh wrote on November 04, 2011 03:30 PM: The LVRJ again shows its complete lack of journalistic ethics by not disclosing your close relationship with Righthaven. Then again if Stephens Media and the the LVRJ had any ethics they never would have affiliated with Righthaven.


Report abuse

beentheredonethat wrote on November 03, 2011 04:48 PM: How can this story be printed here without a mention regarding the interests of this newspaper's parent company and Righthaven? Nonsense.


Report abuse

JR wrote on November 03, 2011 10:45 AM: It is amazing how the Review Journal and the Sun pick and choose what news stories to follow. Instead of just reporting the news, both papers steer clear of some stories. This is one of the few articles in the RJ about Righthaven, while the Sun has reported on it numerous times. The HOA story that has been front page news in the RJ, has barely been reported in the Sun. I wouldn't be surprised if someone connected to the Sun is implicated in the HOA story.


Report abuse

hermit wrote on November 03, 2011 06:49 AM: Is this the first article about Righthaven ever in the RJ?


Report abuse

wilfred.johnson wrote on November 03, 2011 06:36 AM: The Review-Journal is a Righthaven client. you forgot to mention that Stephens Media, the parent company of the RJ, is an investor in Righthaven. The writ covers the $34,045 plus nearly $30,000 in additional legal fees piled up by Hoehn's lawyers. it should be mentioned that the "piled up" fees were a result of Righthaven not following court orders and the clients effort to recover the original court ordered payment. Gibson said he thinks Righthaven will be vindicated Mr. Gibson's problem is that his views don't reflect the current copyright law --- and his contract with the RJ was drawn in direct conflict with the current law.


Friday, Mar. 2, 2012
Clear Clear, 48° Weather Forecast