Anyone can refer any matter to local or federal authorities, so that cannot be appealed, but the monetary judgement may be subject to appeal. A large portion of the basis for the findings of fact and punishments seems to pertain to conduct that simply isn't illegal. Statements like the following undermine the judge's impartiality:
"So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry. "
It is quite obvious that this is the conduct that the judge intends to punish through this order, but that conduct is entirely legal under current law. So are many of the other things the judge complains about, including the use of boilerplate language in the lawsuits, which is routinely done.
This judge disliked the plaintiffs from the outset and went combing through their conduct to find any way he could to nail them. Judges are not supposed to decide who they do or don't like in a case, then craft an outcome based upon those personal feelings. But that is exactly what happened here. Popular rulings aren't always legally sound.
