Earlier this year, a federal judge in Nevada dismissed a lawsuit filed by EESystem 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 another court when the same dispute is already being heard elsewhere.
That layoff was significant. But what came next may be more consequential.
The Light System and Jason Shurka are now pursuing legal 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 counsel, was never destined to succeed.
The last part is not a legal argument. It’s not spin. It is an acknowledgment, in writing, from within EESystems’ own camp.
The statement that changed everything
After the federal dismissal, a consultant hired by EESystems’ legal team posted statements online that described the Nevada lawsuit in terms no litigator could have written better. In his own words:
“The federal case in Nevada will always be dismissed under the first-in-first-out rule. . . . The outcome was foreseen. The case was filed strategically. . . . It was never the main battle.”
This was not an external commenter. This was not an anonymous source. This was a consultant hired and placed by EESystems’ own lawyers, speaking publicly in their official capacity, describing EESystems’ federal lawsuit as a calculated tactical move filed with the full knowledge that it would be dismissed.
Simply put: EESystem launched a federal lawsuit against The Light System and Jason Shurka knowing it would fail. Not because they thought they could win. Because it bought them time and forced both The Light System and Jason Shurka to spend money to defend something that the EESsytem “predicted” would fail.
Why this matters: The legal standard for attorney fees
Courts do not normally award attorney’s fees. To be awarded legal costs under the Lanham Act, the prevailing party must show that the case was “exceptional”—that the opposing party’s conduct differs from the normal range of litigation that does not go one party’s way.
Filing a federal lawsuit with full knowledge it will be dismissed, using it as a temporary tactical device to incriminate an adversary during a specific window, and then having a member of your own team publicly affirm that strategy after the fact—that’s a compelling case for exceptionalism. The attempt to delete these statements adds another layer: it reflects an awareness that the confession was damaging, which in turn supports the conclusion that it was true.
The lighting system’s lawyers have argued just that. The supplemental filing now before the court presents the original statements, the redacted replacements and the removal of the website as a unified picture of litigation that goes far beyond a case that simply did not succeed on the merits.
Where things stand
The federal case is closed. The termination is firm. What is still open is the question of whether EESystem will have to reimburse The Light System and Jason Shurka for all the legal fees they had to pay to get to this point.
Ultimately, EESystems forced The Light System and Jason Shurka to spend significant time and resources defending a lawsuit that EESystems’ own counsel has now described as a strategic filing with an expected outcome of failure. Light System and Shurka are now asking the court to recognize that and to make EESystem bear the costs of a legal maneuver that it initially designed to burden its opponent, not to win.
The evidence is in the record. The court decides what to do with it.
