On December 16, 2010, things didn't appear to be heading in a favorable direction for the likes of the USCG (US Copyright Group) or the bevy of other lawyers involved with P2P litigation. That's because on that day, a judge in West Virginia ruled that instead of lumping thousands of defendants together in one lawsuit, the cases must be filed separately. This follows closely with other developments in these types of cases, which started when Judge Rosemary Collyer, who presides in the Far Cry case, ruled that only those defendants in her court's jurisdiction could be sued.But oddly enough, this turning of the tide against mass P2P litigation hasn't stopped it's activity. In fact, the last week has seen nearly 13,000 John and Jane Does facing potential legal action in US District Court. Here's the rundown of the latest cases:Filed on 12/23/2010: New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1768Filed on 12/23/2010: Diabolic Video Productions, Inc v. Does 1-2099Filed on 12/23/2010: New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1745Filed on 12/23/2010: Third Degree Films, Inc v. Does 1-2010Filed on 12/27/2010: Evasive Angles, Inc. v. Does 1-1149Filed on 12/28/2010: Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-3757Filed on 01/02/2011: D & E Media, LLC v. DOES 1-258Filed on 01/02/2011: Serious Bidness, LLC v. Does 1-109Companies like Evasive Angles, who produces content such as "Big Black Bootie Queens" (the Motion Picture), are discontent over the alleged sharing of their work over BitTorrent. But what about last year's rulings?It seems that some of the complaints address the issue of jurisdiction. In Serious Bidness' complaint, the issue is addressed by stating that all of the alleged are residents of the state of Texas:"This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are residents of this State, including this District, and/or because Defendants’ acts of copyright infringement occurred in this State, including this District and Defendants should anticipate being haled into court in this State."The law firm working for New Sensations doesn’t appear to address the issue fully; in their complaint they simply address that the work may have been traded in California – the state where the complaint was filed."Although the true identity of each defendant is unknown to the Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, each Defendant may be found in this District, and/or the acts complaints of herein occurred and/or have a significant effect within this District. Therefore, venue in this Court is proper…"Will it be proper enough to let these lawsuits slip by? It seems that P2P litigators are awfully reluctant to file each lawsuit individually – so are instead trying the shotgun approach. You can discuss this article here - 6 replies