Contact Us Today! (877) 276-5084

Attorney Steve® Blog

Headhunter LLC “A Family Man” torrent lawsuit filed in Virginia, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, PA

Posted by Steve Vondran | Aug 20, 2017 | 0 Comments

Bittorent Defense IP Firm – Overview of Headhunter LLC Copyright Infringement Case


This blog deals with Headhunter, LLC lawsuits and the move “A Family Man“.  These cases involve use of “” to download and share videos which are the copyrighted products of the Plaintiff.  If you received a subpoena from your ISP (ex. Comcast) or a copy of a lawsuit that you are being asked to respond to, call us for a free initial discussion.  We are an experienced Torrent Defense law firm.  As we like to say, You CLICK We DEFEND.

Where have lawsuits been filed and what law firms have filed these cases as Plaintiff attorney?

Virginia – Case 1:17-cv-00793-CMH-TCB

Dale Jensen, PLC 606 Bull Run Staunton, VA 24401

(434) 249-3874 (866) 372-0348

Texas – 4:17-cv-02352

Fischman Law PLLC 710 North Post Oak Road Ste 105 Houston, TX 77024

North Carolina -3:17-cv-00342-RJC-DSC

Lynch Van Sickle, PLLC 201 Shannon Oaks Circle Suite 200 Cary, NC 27511 919-469-5685

Oregon – 3:17-cv-00900-SI

Crowell Law 943 Liberty St., SE P.O. Box 923 Salem, OR 97308-0923

Pennsylania – 2:17-cv-02985-PBT


Sample allegations in Copyright Lawsuit

Here are some snippets from one case filed by headhunter dealing with their copyrighted movie.   Allegations may differ depending upon your complaint.

Plaintiff Headhunter is a Nevada Limited Liability Company with principal offices in Los Angeles, California and an affiliate of Voltage Pictures, a production company with a notable catalog of award winning major motion pictures.  Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright and/or the pertinent exclusive rights under copyright in the United States in A Family Man, which has been unlawfully distributed over the Internet by Defendant


The Defendant identified herein as Doe is currently known by their Internet Protocol (“IP”) address that was observed by Plaintiff's investigator, Maverickeye, ( as distributing Plaintiff's motion picture. Exhibit B. Through geolocation, the IP address used by the Defendant has been traced to the State of Virginia and this judicial district.  The Defendant has been observed and confirmed as distributing Plaintiff's motion picture and other copyrighted content persistently and consistently on hundreds of occasions over an extended period of several months. In addition to Plaintiff's motion picture A Family Man, the Defendant has been observed and confirmed to be actively distributing:

The Cobbler (2015);

Good Kill (2015);

Wild Horses (2015);

Pay the Ghost (2015);

London Has Fallen (2016);

I am Wrath (2016); Cell (2016 );

Septembers of Shiraz (2015);

Criminal (2016);

Mechanic: Resurrection (2016);

USS Indianapolis, Men of Courage (2016);

IT (2017);

Boyka: Undisputed (2017);

Once Upon a Time in Venice (2017);

Vengeance: A Love Story (2017); and other copyrighted titles.

The Defendant's IP address has been observed associated with the distribution of over 50 other copyrighted titles.

The volume of activity and titles associated with the Defendant's IP address indicates that the Defendant is likely the primary subscriber or someone who resides with the subscriber as such activity indicates the Defendant is an authorized user of the IP address with consistent and permissive access.

The volume of activity and titles associated with Defendant's IP address indicates that the Defendant is not a young child.

More than 30 days prior to filing the present suit the Defendant was sent multiple notices pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(a), a/k/a DMCA Notice, informing the Defendant of the wrongful nature of their conduct and requesting they terminate their infringing activity. Despite such notice the Defendant persisted in infringing the rights of Plaintiff and others, including the repeated selection, download and distribution of new content in violation of the Copyright Act and continues to do so as of the filing of this Complaint.

The Defendant's IP address was at that time of observed infringement managed by Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) Comcast, who on information and belief generally assigns an IP address to a single party for extended periods of time, often for months, and provides Wi-Fi systems with notable pre-installed security and passwords.

Defendant's ISP provides notices and information to its customers about the importance of security, informing them that they are responsible for the activity associated with their account and cautioning subscribers against allowing third party or non-authorized access.

The records maintained by the ISP should be able to identify either the Defendant, or the subscriber who contracted with the ISP for service who in turn is likely to have knowledge that will lead to the identity of the Defendant. Plaintiff intends to seek discovery, including issuing a subpoena for records from the ISP to ascertain the true identity of the Defendant.

The true name of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address assigned by his or her Internet Service Provider and the date and the time at which the infringing activity of each Defendant was observed. Plaintiff believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of Defendant's true name and will permit Plaintiff to amend this Complaint to state the same. Plaintiff further believes that additional information obtained will lead to the identification of additional infringing parties, as monitoring of online infringement of A Family Man is ongoing.


A Family Man is a motion picture set for theatrical release in July 2017 about a man torn between his profession as a corporate headhunter and his loyalties and love for his family. A Family Man, produced under the working title A Headhunter's Calling, is protected by the Copyright Act and registrations including Oct. 16, 2015 and PA 002039392, January 27, 2017. Exhibit A. Under The Copyright Act, Headhunter is the proprietor of copyrights and related interest needed to bring suit. A Family Man contains wholly original material that is copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United States. Defendant had notice of plaintiff's rights through general publication and advertising and more specifically as identified in the content of A Family Man, advertising associated therewith and copies, which bore a proper copyright notice. Headhunter comes to court seeking relief as the motion picture A Family Man, is being pirated and trafficked in the BitTorrent network and is being illegally downloaded and distributed countless times worldwide with many confirmed instances of infringing activity traced to the Eastern District of Virginia. The Defendant is currently known by an assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address that was observed by Plaintiff's investigator, Maverickeye, as distributing A Family Man. Through geolocation, the IP addresses used by the Defendant has been traced to the Commonwealth of Virginia and this judicial district.


BitTorrent, also known as peer-to-peer file sharing, has become one of the most common systems for users to illegally dispense and share huge amounts of data in digital format, including motion pictures. The BitTorrent protocol enables computers to exchange large files (such as motion pictures) without creating a heavy workload for any individual source/computer. It allows users to interact directly with each other to:

(1) make files stored on a user's computer (e.g., motion pictures) available for copying by other users;

(2) search for files stored on other computers; and

(3) transfer exact copies of files from one computer to another over the Internet.

The use of BitTorrent requires multiple intentional acts. A user must load specific software, use the software to join the network, search for a file, and then select the file they wish to download. As each user or peer joins the network and requests a copy of a file, they form a type of social contract to not only download the file, but to be a part of the network to allow the file to be downloaded by others. Each new peer requesting the file receives pieces of the data from each peer who already has downloaded the file, and then in turn makes that content available to others.

Since the BitTorrent protocol also generally limits a peer's ability to download unless he or she also uploads or shares, there is substantial incentive for each peer to remain online and continue to make files available for other peers to download because this will maximize his or her download speed and access to additional content. The Defendant in this action has been observed as making A Family Man available to others in furtherance of the BitTorrent network.

Typical relief that may be sought in a “John Doe” lawsuit

PRAYER FOR RELIEF IN THE COMPLAINT – The complaint filed with the federal court may ask for the following types of remedies:

A. For a finding Defendant willfully infringed Plaintiff's rights;

B. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from direct, indirect or contributory infringement of Plaintiff's rights, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiff. And further directing Defendant to destroy all unauthorized copies of A Family Man;

C. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from supporting the BitTorrent economy of piracy by enjoining each Defendant from

direct, indirect or contributory infringing file sharing in violation of U.S. copyright law;

D. Damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504;

E. For Plaintiff's reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and

F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Contact a Torrent Defense Internet Law Firm

If you are a defendant in an online copyright infringement case call us for a free initial interview.  Call us at (877) 276-5084.   We have helped many clients across the country in settling these federal lawsuits and to get your case settled confidentially.  Click here for our federal court experience.

About the Author

Steve Vondran

Thank you for viewing our blogs, videos and podcasts. As noted, all information on this website is Attorney Advertising. Decisions to hire an attorney should never be based on advertising alone. Any past results discussed herein do not guarantee or predict any future results. All blogs are written by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise indicated. Our firm handles a wide variety of intellectual property and entertainment law cases from music and video law, Youtube disputes, DMCA litigation, copyright infringement cases involving software licensing disputes (ex. BSA, SIIA, Siemens, Autodesk, Vero, CNC, VB Conversion and others), torrent internet file-sharing (Strike 3 and Malibu Media), California right of publicity, TV Signal Piracy, and many other types of IP, piracy, technology, and social media disputes. Call us at (877) 276-5084. AZ Bar Lic. #025911 CA. Bar Lic. #232337


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact us for an initial consultation!

For more information, or to discuss your case or our experience and qualifications please contact us at (877) 276-5084. Please note that our firm does not represent you unless and until a written retainer agreement is signed, and any applicable legal fees are paid. All initial conversations are general in nature. Free consultations are limited to time and availability of counsel and will depend on the type of case you are calling about (no free consultations for other lawyers). All users and potential clients are bound by our Terms of Use Policies. We look forward to working with you!
The Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, P.C. BBB Business Review