In its continuing effort to put the final nail in the coffin of Righthaven, the Randazza Legal Group has now filed for sanctions against Righthaven's lawyers. The filing argues that, given the multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions slamming Righthaven's legal strategy and specifically ruling that Righthaven has no standing to sue, while also questioning if there even is any infringement here at all, Righthaven has a duty to dismiss its remaining cases:

Righthaven's scheme has been rejected nationwide. Within this District, Courts had ruled four times that Righthaven did not have standing to sue its defendants - and that its amendments to the SAA made after filing suit were ineffective - just between June 14 and June 23, 2011.4 To the extent any legitimate question of law existed about Righthaven's standing to sue in the first place, considering this Circuit's precedent in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Corp., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), and Sybersound Records, Incorporated v. UAV Corporation, 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), that doubt should have been resolved in June upon Righthaven's fourth adverse ruling on standing. Yet, only days away from Halloween, the Defendants in this action continue to bear the costs of litigation establishing Righthaven's lack of standing. This District has conclusively settled this exact issue, and Righthaven's consistent argument to the contrary can no longer be advanced in good faith. Righthaven and its Counsel have a duty to dismiss this case, and not to waste the Court's time or the Defendant's time and resources in making the exact same arguments, which have been rejected again, and again, and again, and again.

The filing notes that continuing with these other lawsuits isn't just a waste of everyone's time, but reaches the level of vexatious litigation, by pursuing such cases in obvious bad faith. In the case at hand, involving a site called NewsBlaze, Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, has been trying to argue that, since its original motion to dismiss didn't bring up the standing issue, it can't be added later. It appears that Righthaven is also trying to re-argue the standing issue to some extent, though as this filing notes, that's settled law in this court:

Righthaven is precluded from further arguing that it has standing to bring this action under the SAA, and that its amendments executed after filing suit are effective, by the doctrine of issue preclusion - formerly known as collateral estoppel. When an issue has been fully and actually litigated, as these issues have been ad nauseam in this District, a party is barred from relitigating the issue.

Will we finally see the end of Righthaven?