IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE (COURT)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-XXXX, Defendants. __________________________/

CASE No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MOTION TO DISSMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Doe, requesting to remain anonymous, moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(m), based on the following:

This case was initially filed on (Date), but has not obtained service of any type on myself and other Doe defendants within the requirement of 120 days. As of the date of filing this motion, Plaintiff has had over XXX days to serve a summons on myself and other Doe defendants. As many of the defendants do not reside within the Courts jurisdiction, Plaintiff has decided not to pursue named summons that will ultimately be dismissed when a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Jurisdiction is filed with the Court. Plaintiff has been in possession of the subscriber information for a vast majority of the defendants since the middle of 2010. This violates the time limit for service pursuant to Civil Rule 4(m), so that the action must be dismissed. Coleman v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.100 F.R.D. 476, 477 (N.D. Ill. 1984); Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F.Supp.2d 76, 80 (D. D.C., 2006); Braithwaite v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 160 F.R.D. 75, 77 (D. Md., 1995)

Plaintiff may argue that this motion should be dismissed because of its anonymous filing. The reason for filing this motion anonymous is because I fear retaliation by Plaintiff. By filing this motion, I draw more attention to Plaintiffs questionable action in how he pursues this and other copyright infringements cases. If I filed this motion under true name, I feel I would be singled out by Plaintiff for vindictive prosecution. The prosecution would not be because of the alleged copyright infringement, but to serve as an example to other defendants who do not settle with Plaintiff and dare to file motions against him. One well known copyright infringement lawyer, John Steele (formally of Steele | Hansmeier PLLC, now Prenda Law Inc.), recently stated in an Internet Blog (http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/18/trolls-in-panic-steele-hansmeier-files-an-amicusbrief-trying-to-prevent-the-inevitable-downfall-of-the-us-trolls/) (See Exhibit A), that if a Doe defendant is lucky enough to have a motion succeed, their victory will be pyrrhic, as his firm will likely file against the Doe defendant individually the following day. John Steele also goes on to say that, Playingrussianroulettewithourfirmisachoicemostpeoplewithanyassets, orajob,wouldneverdo.Thisstatementgoestotheheartofthemasscopyrightinfringement lawyerstacticofthreateningdefendantsintosettling.Theembarrassingthreatofbeingnamed inacopyrightinfringementcasedealingwithpornography,thecostofhiringanattorney,as wellasriskofpossiblylosingonesjoband/orpersonalassets,maycauseeveninnocent personneltopaythesettlementfeetomakeitgoaway. For this case, Plaintiff has contacted the Doe defendants via mail and telephone calls, attempting to negotiate a settlement for the alleged copyright infringement. The central

part of Plaintiffs settlement efforts is the claim they will name myself in a federal law suit. I received my initial settlement demand during the last first part of 2011. Plaintiff claimed I was responsible for copyright infringement, there was no mistake or error on their part, and I had a short period of time to settle with them for $(Amount). If I didnt settle, I would be named in a Federal law suit and the cost to me would be far greater. I have received multiple letters and telephone calls from Plaintiff trying to get me to settle. Each one of these letters and calls used the threat of being named in a Federal law suit. I have not settled with Plaintiff and as the Court can easily determine, myself and the other Doe defendants have not been named or served. The lack of naming Doe defendants or serving summons even 120 days after the Internet Service Provider (ISP) releases subscriber information is a standard ploy used by a majority of copyright infringement lawyers. This was recently noted in a 1 Dec 2011, order (Order For Plaintiff To File Declaration RE Case Status) from Judge MariaElenaJames, NorthernDistrictofCalifornia,forcase#3:11CV02766MEJ,PatrickCollinsv.Does12590. Inthisorder, the court stated, Since granting Plaintiffs request, a check of the Courts docket disclosed that no defendant has appeared and no proof of service has been filed. Further, the Court is aware that this case is but one of the many mass copyright cases to hit the dockets of federal district courts across the country in recent months. Like in this case, after filing the suit, the plaintiff seeks discovery from ISPs who possess subscriber information associated with each IP address. With the subscriber information in hand, the court is told, the plaintiff can proceed to name the defendants in the conventional manner and serve each defendant, so that the case may proceed to disposition. This disposition might take the form of settlement, summary judgment, or if necessary, trial. In most, if not all, of these cases, if the plaintiff is permitted the requested discovery, none of the Doe defendants are subsequently named in the cases; instead, the plaintiffs counsel sends settlement demand letters and the defendants are subsequently dismissed either by the Court or voluntarily by the plaintiff.

The Court also directed this Plaintiff to provide detailed information concerning the dates Plaintiff received ISP subscriber information on Doe defendants, why the Doe defendants have not been named or served, and why any Doe defendants who do not reside within the Courts jurisdiction should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue. The lack of naming Doe defendants or serving summons goes to prove that Plaintiff is only filing these mass John Doe cases in your jurisdiction (and others) to obtain subscriber information and send out settlement letters and/or calls threatening being named in a federal law suit. The lack of Plaintiff naming any of the Doe defendants, as well as the number of defendant dismissals by Plaintiff (after paying Plaintiffs settlement fee) give great credibility to the view that Plaintiff is misleading the court on its true intention. WHEREFORE, anonymous Doe defendant in this case respectfully requests the Court to dismiss this case, without prejudice.

Dated: 12/XX/2011

Respectfully submitted,

s/John Doe John Doe Pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on 12/XX/2011, I served a copy of the foregoing document, via US Mail, on: Troll Address

EXHIBIT A