A lawyer was fined for failing to play enough Call of Duty

A lawyer was fined for failing to play enough Call of Duty ...

Brooks Entertainment, Inc.'s lawyer, Shon Brooks, was ordered to pay Activisions legal fees by a California court, mostly due to the attorneys lack of Call of Dutygame time. The situation arose after a lawsuit was filed against Activision by Brooks Entertainment and its CEO, Shon Brooks, alleging that the multinational company violated Shon Brooks' trademark by making Sean Brooks the main character in the Call of Duty franchise.

Before embarking on this ill-fated legal adventure, it became apparent that the lawyer likely hadn't played a single game in the series, demonstrating that cheating can have serious consequences in court.

Brooks Entertainment, Inc. claims that their stock picker and save one bank games are similar to CoD because both actors performed tasks such as identifying thieves, using missiles, and going to Mars, as well as the titles both having scripted game battle sequences set in a high-end couture shopping center mall.

Here's a soon-to-be-legendary excerpt from a counsel's filing on March 2:

After receiving the Complaint, I played the entirety of the single-player campaign of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare [and] it was immediately apparent to me that many (if not nearly all) of the factual allegations in the Complaint were incorrect. Plaintiffs counsel could not, therefore, have filed the complaint in good faith.

The judgment rejected the Complaint with prejudice on July 12 (meaning it won't be filed again). Sean Brooks isn't the game's main character at all and doesn't even appear in the game's shopping mall battle. Activision also filed a lawsuit against the government for monetary damages under California'santi-SLAPP law, which is aimed at punishing individuals for essentially nonsensical lawsuits.

Activision also filed a motion for sanctioning the plaintiff (meaning the company) under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A lawyer automatically certifies that the claims [] are justified by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument and that the facts have evidence or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidence after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation.

You are not submitting a lawsuit to the Court with arbitrary or simply incorrect statements that have no evidence to support them. As Brooks Entertainment and their attorney found out, this is the case in California, where the two parties are forced to pay outrageous amounts for failing to understand a Call of Duty campaign.