Earlier this year, a federal judge in Nevada dismissed a lawsuit that EESystem filed against The Light System and Jason Shurka. The case was thrown out under the “first-to-file rule”, which is a legal principle that prevents a party from filing a new lawsuit in a different court when the same dispute is already being litigated elsewhere.
That dismissal was significant. But what came next may be more consequential.
The Light System and Jason Shurka are now pursuing attorney’s fees in court – asking a federal judge to order EESystem to pay the legal costs both The Light System and Shurka were forced to spend defending a lawsuit that, according to EESystem’s own consultant, was never intended to succeed.
That last part is not a legal argument. It is not spin. It is an admission, in writing, from inside EESystem’s own camp.
The Statement That Changed Everything
After the federal dismissal, a consultant retained by EESystem’s legal team published statements online describing the Nevada lawsuit in terms that no litigation opponent could have written better. In his own words:
“The Nevada federal case was always going to get dismissed under the first-to-file rule… The outcome was anticipated. The case was filed strategically… It was never the main fight.”
This was not an outside commentator. This was not an anonymous source. This was a consultant hired and positioned by EESystem’s own attorneys, speaking publicly in his official capacity, describing EESystem’s federal lawsuit as a calculated tactical move filed with full knowledge it would be dismissed.
In plain terms: EESystem opened a federal case against The Light System and Jason Shurka knowing it would fail. Not because they believed they could win. Because it bought them time and forced both The Light System and Jason Shurka to spend money to defend something that EESsytem “anticipated” was going to fail.
Why This Matters: The Legal Standard for Attorney’s Fees
Courts do not award attorney’s fees in ordinary cases. To recover legal costs under the Lanham Act, the prevailing party must demonstrate that the case was “exceptional” – that the opposing party’s conduct stands out from the normal range of litigation that doesn’t go a party’s way.
Filing a federal lawsuit with full knowledge it will be dismissed, using it as a temporary tactical instrument to burden an opponent during a specific window, and then having a member of your own team publicly confirm that strategy after the fact – that is a compelling case for exceptionality. The attempted erasure of those statements adds another layer: it reflects an awareness that the admission was damaging, which in turn supports the inference that it was true.
The Light System’s attorneys have argued precisely that. The supplemental filing now before the court presents the original statements, the edited replacements, and the takedown of the website as a unified picture of litigation conduct that goes well beyond a case that simply didn’t succeed on the merits.
Where Things Stand
The federal case is closed. The dismissal stands. What remains open is the question of whether EESystem will have to reimburse The Light System and Jason Shurka of all attorneys fees that they had to pay to get to this point.
Ultimately, EESystem forced The Light System and Jason Shurka to spend significant time and resources defending a lawsuit that EESystem’s own consultant has now described as a strategic filing with an anticipated outcome of failure. The Light System and Shurka are now asking the court to recognize that, and to make EESystem bear the cost of a legal maneuver it designed from the start to burden its opponent, not to win.
The evidence is in the record. The court will decide what to do with it.
